Skip to main content
Glama

Npi Registry

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, but the description adds substantial context: the dual execution paths (SEC vs grounded), the verdict taxonomy, and the crucial distinction between could_not_verify (didn't run) and unsupported (no source exists). This goes well beyond the safety hints and helps the agent interpret results correctly.

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 front-loaded with trigger phrases and purpose, and every sentence carries useful information. However, it is quite long and the list of example phrases could be trimmed without losing meaning. Still, for a multi-path tool, the length is mostly justified.

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 fully covers what to expect: verdict types, actual value with citation, reasoning, and detailed explanations of could_not_verify and unsupported. It also explains the fallback routing, making it complete for an agent to decide on this tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions (claim example, tolerance_pct range and default). The tool description adds a bit about percent-delta math and hallucination detection, but this is largely redundant with the schema. No significant new semantic value beyond what the schema already provides.

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 explicit trigger phrases and states the verb-resource pair: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it replaces 4–6 sequential calls and returns a verdict, unlike search or deep_research.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also provides routing rules for company-financial vs. other claims and warns about could_not_verify semantics, giving clear when-to-use and when-to-be-cautious guidance.

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

All Npi Registry 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
Disambiguation4/5

The tools are generally distinct, with clear purposes for NPI registry operations, but some overlap exists between ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, which all route to the same underlying data but with different response modes. Additionally, bet_research and polymarket_edges both offer analysis of prediction markets, causing potential confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming is mixed: some tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., search, remember, forget), while others use descriptive but non-pattern names like ai_visibility_check or ask_pipeworx_grounded. There is also a mix of snake_case and camelCase (e.g., generate_llms_txt vs. ai_visibility_check).

Tool Count4/5

With 33 tools, the count is slightly high but still reasonable given the broad scope of the server, which covers NPI registry, company profiles, prediction markets, AI visibility, and more. Each tool serves a distinct purpose, though a few could potentially be consolidated.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers the NPI registry core (search, get by NPI) but lacks obvious CRUD operations like create, update, or delete for providers. For other domains like company profiles, it has good coverage, but the NPI-specific functionality feels incomplete without lifecycle management.

Resources