Skip to main content
Glama

nvd

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints; the description adds crucial behavioral nuance: the distinction between could_not_verify (verification failed, no evidence either way) and unsupported (no source covers it), and the presence of verification_error{stage,detail}. It also explains the two execution paths (SEC EDGAR+XBRL fast path vs grounded pipeline) and that evidence is cited with pipeworx://. No contradiction with 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 long but all content is functional: query examples, usage directive, path differentiation, return value summary, error semantics, and efficiency claim. It is front-loaded with examples and organized topically. No filler.

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 2 parameters, full schema coverage, and no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: what it returns, how it routes, and the meaning of critical edge-case verdicts. It is sufficient for an agent to select and invoke 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 covers both parameters with detailed descriptions (claim example, tolerance_pct override and default cap). The description adds no further parameter-level detail beyond referencing 'exact percent-delta math,' which is already implied. With 100% schema coverage, the baseline is 3.

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 concrete query examples ("Is it true that…", "fact check") and states it performs natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded by focusing on claim validation with two routing paths and specific verdicts. The verb 'validate' plus resource 'claim' is specific, and the scope is unambiguous.

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 states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' giving a clear when-to-use. It also distinguishes between company-financial claims and other factual claims, indicating the tool handles both via different pipelines. It notes this tool replaces 4–6 sequential calls, implying it is the consolidated alternative, but does not name sibling tools or give explicit when-not to use.

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

All nvd 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but some overlap exists (e.g., ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research and ask_pipeworx). The Polymarket tools are numerous but clearly differentiated.

Naming Consistency3/5

Mixed naming conventions: some tools start with verbs (ask_pipeworx, search_cves), others with nouns (entity_profile, recent_changes). Prefixes (pipeworx_, polymarket_) help but the pattern is not uniform.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is excessive for a single server, covering too many domains (NVD, Pipeworx, Polymarket, SEC, memory). This reduces coherence and makes it hard for agents to navigate.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are covered: CVE lookup, company research, prediction market analysis, and data querying. However, there are minor gaps (e.g., no tool for editing stored data, no CVE metrics beyond search).

Resources