Skip to main content
Glama

Opendosm My

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/openWorld, and the description adds substantive behavioral detail: it enumerates all six possible verdicts, explains the difference between 'could_not_verify' (check did not happen, includes verification_error) and 'unsupported' (no source covers it), and clarifies that 'could_not_verify' must not be treated as evidence. This meaningfully extends the annotation data.

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 every sentence serves a purpose: trigger phrases, routing logic, verdict list, caller warning, and efficiency claim. It is front-loaded with invocation examples and the core purpose. Slightly verbose due to the detailed error-semantics explanation, but that detail is essential for correct usage.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully specifies return values (verdicts, actual value with citation, reasoning) and the critical error-handling semantic. It covers both covered and uncovered claim types, explains the fallback path, and gives default behavior for tolerance. For a tool with this complexity, the description is remarkably complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description enriches both parameters: it explains how tolerance_pct overrides the claim's implied tolerance, gives a practical use case ('set 1–2 for hallucination detection'), and states the default behavior. This goes well beyond the schema's basic field descriptions.

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 trigger phrases and clearly states the tool performs 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It distinguishes from siblings by describing the two-tier pipeline (SEC EDGAR fast path vs grounded pipeline) and explicitly notes it 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls,' making the tool's unique role evident.

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 says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and explains the routing logic for financial vs other claims. It doesn't name sibling tools as alternatives, but the 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls' implicitly advises consolidating those steps into this single call, giving clear context if not explicit exclusions.

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

All Opendosm My 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The set includes three nearly-identical ask_pipeworx variants (base, beta, grounded) that differ only subtly, and deep_research overlaps with ask_pipeworx for multi-part queries. Several company/prediction tools also share adjacent purposes (entity_profile vs recent_changes vs compare_entities; polymarket_arbitrage vs polymarket_edges), though detailed descriptions help. Overall, an agent could mis-select between these overlapping tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun or consistent prefix pattern (opendosm_*, polymarket_*), and the ask_pipeworx family is internally consistent. However, a few are noun phrases (entity_profile, ai_visibility_check, recent_alerts) and some verbs aren't uniform (list_datasets vs dataset_meta vs get_dataset). The mixture is readable but not fully consistent.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the typical focused server range and includes a clearly redundant experimental variant (ask_pipeworx_beta) plus many loosely-related utility functions (memory, subscriptions, dependency scanning, llms.txt generation). While the broad scope justifies some size, the count feels excessive for the 'Opendosm My' name, which suggests a narrower Malaysian-statistics focus.

Completeness4/5

For the apparent overarching goal of a multi-domain research/query platform, the surface is quite complete: data lookup, deep research, entity comparison, claim verification, prediction-market analysis, memory, and subscriptions are all covered. The Malaysian OpenDOSM component itself has list/meta/get lifecycle. Minor gaps (e.g., no direct dataset search beyond curated lists, no way to execute arbitrary Pipeworx tools directly) are workable.

Resources