Skip to main content
Glama

Newsapi

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description provides substantial behavioral context beyond the annotations: two distinct processing paths (SEC EDGAR/XBRL vs. grounded pipeline), the verdict taxonomy, and a crucial caller warning that 'could_not_verify' indicates the check did not happen (with verification_error) and must not be treated as evidence. This disclosure is essential for correct use and goes far beyond the readOnlyHint/idempotentHint annotations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is detailed but well-structured: it front-loads common user phrasings, states the core purpose, then explains routing, return values, and important caveats. Each sentence adds distinct value, with no redundant fluff. The length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description enumerates the verdict types, return contents (actual value, citation, reasoning), and the error field for could_not_verify. It explains unsupported, covers both processing routes, and gives usage context. This is highly complete for an agent to invoke and interpret the tool correctly.

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 already provides complete descriptions for both parameters (100% coverage), including tolerance_pct's meaning and default. The tool description adds no extra parameter-level semantics beyond referencing 'exact percent-delta math' for the SEC path, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It uses specific action verbs ('fact check', 'verify the claim', 'confirm or refute') and differentiates itself from siblings by describing its function as a single consolidated step replacing 4–6 sequential calls.

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?

The description explicitly tells the agent when to use it ('Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct') and explains the internal routing for company-financial vs. other claims. It mentions it 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls' which implies an alternative, but it does not name specific sibling tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use conditions, so it's not a perfect 5.

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

All Newsapi 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There are several clusters of tools with overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions to data sources; entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes all provide company research. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent could easily misselect among these near-duplicates, especially since ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now.

Naming Consistency2/5

Placeholder for naming consistency placeholder

Tool Count1/5

34 tools for a server named Newsapi is an extreme scope mismatch. Only three tools (everything, top_headlines, sources) are news-related; the rest cover data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and package scanning, which belongs in separate servers. The count is also past the 25+ range that feels overloaded for any single purpose.

Completeness3/5

The three NewsAPI tools themselves cover the standard news surface (top_headlines, everything, sources) with no major gaps. However, the server's stated purpose is diluted by ~30 unrelated tools, and the non-news tools form an incoherent assortment with no clear unified domain to assess completeness against. The mismatch makes completeness hard to reason about and degrades the overall usefulness.

Resources