Skip to main content
Glama

Mydisease

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Validate Claim

validate_claim
Read-onlyIdempotent

"Is it true that…" / "fact check" / "verify the claim that…" / "did X really…" / "was Y actually…" / "confirm or refute" / "true or false" — natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct. Company-financial claims (revenue, net income, cash for public US companies) verify via the structured SEC EDGAR + XBRL fast path with exact percent-delta math; ANY OTHER factual claim (macro statistics, rates, prices, drug data, records) automatically falls through to the grounded pipeline — routed to the right live source, answered with verbatim evidence, then judged. Returns a verdict (confirmed / approximately_correct / refuted / inconclusive / unsupported / could_not_verify), the grounded or structured actual value with pipeworx:// citation, and reasoning. IMPORTANT for callers: could_not_verify means the check did not happen (our LLM or source failed) and carries verification_error{stage,detail} — it is NOT evidence for or against the claim, and must not be shown as one. unsupported means we looked and cover no source for it. Replaces 4–6 sequential calls (NL parsing → entity resolution → data lookup → comparison).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
claimYesNatural-language factual claim, e.g., "Apple's FY2024 revenue was $400 billion" or "Microsoft made about $100B in profit last year".
tolerance_pctNoMax percent deviation still graded approximately_correct (0.5–50). Overrides the tolerance implied by the claim wording — set 1–2 for hallucination detection where any material error must be refuted. Default: implied by wording, capped at 5.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / tolerance_pct
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Max percent deviation still graded approximately_correct (0.5–50). Overrides the tolerance implied by the claim wording — set 1–2 for hallucination detection where any material error must be refuted. Default: implied by wording, capped at 5.",
+  "type": "number"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations already cover read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds crucial behavioral nuance: it explains the verdict set, warns that 'could_not_verify' means the check did not happen and must not be treated as evidence, and clarifies the difference between it and 'unsupported'. This goes beyond what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is verbose but well-structured, front-loading purpose and usage before diving into return values and caveats. It contains necessary detail for a tool with complex semantics, though a few redundant phrases ('natural-language claim verification' vs 'factually correct') could be trimmed.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness5/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Since there is no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values. It lists verdict outcomes, mentions the actual value with citation and reasoning, and thoroughly explains edge cases like 'could_not_verify' and 'unsupported'. It also covers both execution paths, making it complete for an agent to use effectively.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including a concrete example for 'claim' and full semantics/tolerance for 'tolerance_pct'. The description adds no additional parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose5/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description explicitly states the tool's function: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources' with trigger phrases like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that'. It distinguishes this tool from siblings by detailing two processing paths (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for financial claims, grounded pipeline for other facts), making its scope unmistakable.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It provides clear when-to-use guidance: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also clarifies coverage (all factual claims) and internal routing. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, which would earn a 5.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

All Mydisease toolsInspect
Try in Browser
RayrunBuild, deploy, and operate MCP servers without becoming an infrastructure team.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple research/query entry points overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research sit on the same routing core, and validate_claim/bet_research/entity_profile all wrap lookup-and-analyze behavior. The detailed descriptions help within specialized clusters, but the central ask_pipeworx family alone creates real selection ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lower_snake_case and several families are consistent (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, remember/recall/forget), but the overall set mixes bare verbs, nouns, and verb_noun composites with no global pattern (disease, metadata, query, entity_profile, generate_llms_txt, validate_claim). It is readable but not predictable across the full 34-tool surface.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is over the 25+ threshold and the set bundles several distinct domains—disease ontology, Pipeworx data access, prediction markets, AI visibility, npm scanning, memory, and subscriptions—into one server. Each subfamily may be justified, but the combined surface is heavy and makes tool selection harder than the underlying tasks require.

Completeness4/5

The disease domain has query/disease/metadata for search-and-fetch read coverage, and the broader research side has lookup, grounded verification, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, subscriptions, and memory lifecycle tools. Minor gaps exist (no direct tool to fetch pipeworx:// citation URIs, no disease browsing/pagination), but these are workable rather than blocking.

Resources