Skip to main content
Glama

npm

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. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and idempotentHint=true; the description adds critical behavioral nuance by explaining that could_not_verify is a system failure (not evidence) and unsupported means no source coverage. This prevents misuse of verdict values, which is valuable beyond what annotations 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 longer than average but front-loaded with trigger phrases and a clear purpose. Each section (examples, routing, verdict semantics, efficiency) earns its place, though the 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls' benefit could be considered redundant.

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 thoroughly explains the return values (verdicts), the distinction between could_not_verify and unsupported, and the two processing paths. It also provides usage guidance and tolerance configuration, making it self-contained for an agent.

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 covers 100% of parameters with clear descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds practical semantics for tolerance_pct, explaining it overrides the wording-implied tolerance and recommending 1-2% for hallucination detection, which goes beyond the schema's generic 'max percent deviation.'

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?

States a clear verb+resource: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. Distinguishes from siblings by explaining the SEC EDGAR/XBRL fast path for company-financial claims and automatic fallback for any other claim. Examples of user phrasings make the purpose immediately recognizable.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and provides trigger phrases. It also notes the tool replaces multiple sequential calls, implying it is the canonical verification entry point. However, it does not name specific sibling tools to avoid.

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

All npm 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Descriptions are exceptionally detailed and differentiate tools well; the ask_pipeworx family (stable/beta/grounded), polymarket tools, and npm lookup tools each have clear separation of intent. Minor overlap exists between polymarket_edges and polymarket_arbitrage (both surface opportunities) and between discover_tools, suggest_questions, and pipeworx_trending (all aid discovery), but descriptions mostly resolve the ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and several families are consistent (get_*, list_*, search_*, ask_pipeworx, polymarket_*), but the convention is inconsistent: verb-first names (resolve_entity, validate_claim, scan_dependency) coexist with noun-first or noun-only names (entity_profile, deep_research, bet_research, recent_alerts, ai_visibility_check, pipeworx_trending, polymarket_arbitrage). No clear governing pattern beyond snake_case.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well over the 25-tool heavy threshold, and the majority (~29) are unrelated to the server's declared 'npm' identity — they are Pipeworx data-query, prediction-market, memory, and subscription tools. Only about 7 tools (search_packages, get_package, get_version_info, list_versions, get_downloads, scan_dependency, generate_llms_txt) actually pertain to npm. The scope is a kitchen-sink mismatch with the server name.

Completeness3/5

For npm, the read-side surface is reasonably complete: search, inspect package metadata, version listings, download counts, and a dependency-safety composite check. However, there are no lifecycle operations (publish, unpublish, deprecate, set versions/tags), leaving a notable gap, and the bulk of the server's functionality (data queries, prediction bets) belongs to an entirely different domain that can't be cohesively evaluated against the npm purpose.

Resources