Skip to main content
Glama

Neso

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description adds critical behavioral details: the specific verdicts returned, the meaning of 'could_not_verify' (failure of the check, NOT evidence), 'unsupported' (no source), and the warning not to treat could_not_verify as evidence. It also explains the tolerance_pct override semantics and default behavior, providing deep transparency.

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 long but every sentence adds value. It front-loads with query examples, states the action, explains routing, lists return structure, and highlights critical caller warnings. It could be slightly tightened, but the density is justified given the complexity and the absence of an output schema.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain return values, and it does so thoroughly: verdicts, actual value with citation, reasoning, and the special semantics of could_not_verify and unsupported. It also covers routing, tolerance behavior, and the tool's replacement of sequential calls, making it complete for an agent to use correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

The input schema already fully describes both parameters (claim and tolerance_pct) with examples. The description adds meaningful extra semantics: tolerance_pct overrides the wording-implied tolerance, has a default cap of 5, and a specific use case (set 1–2 for hallucination detection). This goes beyond schema descriptions, but the schema already covers the basics.

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 opens with concrete natural-language trigger phrases and states the tool's precise function: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It clearly differentiates from siblings by noting it replaces 4-6 sequential calls (NL parsing → entity resolution → data lookup → comparison), making the purpose 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 explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also distinguishes company-financial claims (SEC EDGAR fast path) from other factual claims (grounded pipeline), giving clear routing guidance. It doesn't name alternative tools or state when not to use it, but the context is strong.

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

All Neso 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

The ask_pipeworx / ask_pipeworx_beta / ask_pipeworx_grounded trio is genuinely confusing — beta is explicitly identical to stable, and grounded differs only in output format, so agents will struggle to pick the right one. The six Polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread, bet_research) also blur together despite distinct purposes, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap heavily.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming is largely consistent: snake_case throughout, with a strong verb-first pattern (list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, validate_claim, compare_entities, discover_tools) and clear domain prefixes for clusters (neso_, pipeworx_, polymarket_). The only inconsistency is the ask_pipeworx family, which differentiates by bare suffix (_beta, _grounded) rather than a descriptive verb.

Tool Count3/5

35 tools is on the heavy side, but the server is a broad multi-domain data platform (SEC, FDA, FRED, NESO, Polymarket, npm, memory, subscriptions, discovery) where the count is arguably justified. Several tools could be consolidated — the three ask_pipeworx variants are redundant, and scan_competitor_ai_presence largely wraps ai_visibility_check — which would tighten the surface meaningfully.

Completeness4/5

Coverage is strong across the stated domains: lookups, deep research, entity resolution, claim verification, comparisons, memory lifecycle (remember/recall/forget), subscription lifecycle (subscribe/unsubscribe/list/recent_alerts), discovery (discover_tools, suggest_questions), feedback, and trending. Minor gaps exist (no direct document-fetch tool, scan_dependency is npm-only in v1) but nothing that creates a dead end.

Resources