Skip to main content
Glama

Openreview

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 read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds crucial behavioral details beyond that: dual routing logic, specific verdict labels, the pipeworx:// citation, and a critical clarification that 'could_not_verify' means the check did not happen and must not be treated as evidence. It also clarifies the meaning of 'unsupported', giving callers a full understanding of what the tool returns and what each outcome implies.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It opens with concrete query examples, defines the tool's purpose, explains the two processing paths, lists return values, and warns about the 'could_not_verify' trap. Despite length, it is well-organized and front-loaded, with no redundant filler or repetition of schema details.

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?

Given the absence of an output schema, the description fully covers return values (verdicts, actual value, citation, reasoning) and error semantics (could_not_verify with verification_error, unsupported). It also handles context by describing the automatic routing and the fact that this replaces multiple sequential calls, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to operate correctly.

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 coverage is 100% with clear descriptions for both 'claim' and 'tolerance_pct'. The description adds extra value by explaining how tolerance_pct overrides the claim's implied tolerance, provides a suggested range for hallucination detection, and states the default cap at 5. This goes beyond the schema and helps agents set the parameter appropriately.

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 identifies the tool as natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific examples of user phrasing. It further distinguishes two distinct paths (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for company-financial claims vs. grounded pipeline for all else), making it unambiguous what the tool does and how it differs from general research or lookup tools.

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 states explicitly when to use: 'whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also notes the tool replaces 4–6 sequential calls, implying it should be preferred over multi-step alternatives. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools to avoid or provide exclusion criteria beyond the coverage of claim types, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance.

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

All Openreview 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set includes both OpenReview-specific tools (e.g., get_paper, list_submissions) and a large number of unrelated tools for Pipeworx, Polymarket, and SEC filings. While individual descriptions are clear, the mix of domains creates confusion about which tools to use for a given task, leading to potential misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow inconsistent patterns: some use underscore_case (ai_visibility_check, generate_llms_txt), some are verb_noun (get_paper, list_venues), and others use descriptive phrases (ask_pipeworx_grounded, polymarket_arbitrage). The lack of a unified naming scheme makes the tool set feel disjointed.

Tool Count2/5

With 37 tools, the count is too high for a server supposedly focused on OpenReview. Only about 6 tools are directly related to OpenReview; the rest are for unrelated domains like prediction markets, data retrieval, and memory management. The scope is unclear and overloaded.

Completeness2/5

For the OpenReview domain, the tool set covers basic retrieval (get_paper, search_notes, list_submissions) but lacks operations like creating or updating notes, which are common in a review platform. The inclusion of many non-OpenReview tools does not compensate for these gaps, leaving the surface incomplete for its stated purpose.

Resources