Skip to main content
Glama

Notion_connect

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.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing the meaning of 'could_not_verify' (check did not happen, carries verification_error, must not be shown as evidence) and distinguishing it from 'unsupported' (no source found). This is critical behavioral nuance not present in any structured field.

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?

Although longer than typical descriptions, every sentence adds value: trigger phrases, usage guidance, routing logic, verdict taxonomy, error semantics, and efficiency benefit. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and examples, and the special-case explanations are succinctly packed.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description adequately covers return values (verdicts, actual value, citation, reasoning), error conditions, routing decisions, and performance advantages. It gives enough detail for an agent to understand the tool's full behavior and limitations.

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 already covers both parameters 100%, but the description adds valuable context: tolerance_pct's default behavior (implied by wording, capped at 5) and its override semantics for hallucination detection. It also gives concrete claim examples that clarify expected input format 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 function: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It includes specific trigger phrases ('fact check', 'verify the claim that') and distinguishes between company-financial claims and any other factual claim, making its scope unmistakable. It also differentiates itself from broader research tools by focusing on true/false verdicts.

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

Usage Guidelines5/5

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

Explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains the routing behavior (SEC EDGAR fast path for financial claims, grounded pipeline for everything else) and notes that it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, giving clear context for when to invoke it over alternatives.

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

All Notion_connect 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions to the same 5,708 tools, with beta explicitly described as currently identical to the stable version. Prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage) also blur together, and the Notion tools are a small island in a sea of unrelated Pipeworx utilities.

Naming Consistency3/5

The names are uniformly lowercase with underscores, but conventions are mixed: some use verb-first patterns (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency), others are noun-phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes, polymarket_edges), and domain prefixes are inconsistent (notion_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, but bare bet_research, compare_entities, recall). It is readable but lacks a coherent naming scheme.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is already heavy, but the bigger issue is scope: the server is named Notion_connect yet only 5 of 36 tools relate to Notion. The rest span data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, npm auditing, and llms.txt generation — a grab bag far beyond any single purpose, with multiple redundant meta-tools inflating the count.

Completeness2/5

As a Notion connector it is severely incomplete: there is no create/update/delete for pages or databases, and no way to write content back to Notion — only read/search/query operations. For the broader Pipeworx surface, the tool set is sprawling but unfocused, so it is hard to identify a coherent domain where coverage could be considered complete.

Resources