Skip to main content
Glama

Nihr

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?

The description goes well beyond annotations by detailing the internal routing (SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded pipeline), the full verdict set, citation format, and the crucial distinction between 'could_not_verify' (check did not happen) and 'unsupported' (no source exists). This is critical behavioral context that annotations do not 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 relatively long but well-structured, front-loading trigger phrases and then logically covering routing, returns, and error semantics. Every sentence adds substantive information, so while not ultra-concise, it earns its length.

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?

The description is comprehensive for a tool with this complexity: it covers trigger phrases, routing logic, output format (verdicts, evidence, reasoning), error semantics, and parameter nuance. It also explains the efficiency benefit over sequential calls. No important operational aspect is left unexplained.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the semantics of tolerance_pct (overrides implied tolerance, useful for hallucination detection) and provides concrete examples for the claim parameter, enhancing parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources' with explicit trigger phrases ('fact check', 'verify the claim that'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by its single-call replacement of a multi-step pipeline and its specific focus on claim verification.

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 provides explicit usage context: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also describes the routing behavior for company-financial vs. other claims. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or state when not to use, so 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 Nihr 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set contains several clusters of near-overlapping tools: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, ask_pipeworx/deep_research/validate_claim all handle natural-language queries, and bet_research/polymarket_edges/polymarket_arbitrage scan the same prediction-market space. The descriptions are detailed, but that does not remove the boundary confusion.

Naming Consistency4/5

Almost all tools use lowercase snake_case with recognizable patterns such as verb_noun or prefix_domain (nihr_, polymarket_, pipeworx_). There are minor deviations like ask_pipeworx_beta vs ask_pipeworx_grounded and mixed noun/verb phrasing, but the naming is predictable overall.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is beyond the typical well-scoped server size, and the set reads as several products bundled together: NIHR grants, Pipeworx data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and standalone utilities like generate_llms_txt or scan_dependency. Even for a broad data platform this is too many to navigate coherently, and it is a severe mismatch for a server named 'Nihr'.

Completeness3/5

Within its subdomains the set covers core workflows: query (ask/deep_research/validate), entity resolution/profile/comparison, NIHR grant lookup by several dimensions, prediction-market analysis through fill-risk, and memory/subscription lifecycles. But it is a collection of partial products rather than one coherent domain, and some outputs such as pipeworx:// citations or detected arbitrage opportunities lack an obvious in-set tool to consume them further.

Resources