Skip to main content
Glama

Openrouteservice

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds critical behavioral context: the distinction between 'could_not_verify' (check did not happen, not evidence) and 'unsupported' (no source exists), plus the structured vs. grounded pipeline behavior. This is valuable transparency not present in annotations.

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 relatively long but information-dense, with a clear front-loaded intent and structured flow from purpose to usage to outputs and important caveats. Every sentence earns its place; the length is justified for a tool with this complexity. Minor redundancy exists in repeating the verification concept.

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 tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description fully compensates by detailing return values (verdicts, actual value, citation, reasoning) and error semantics. The annotations handle safety, and the description covers operational nuances, making it complete for an agent to select and invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant extra meaning about parameters beyond the schema's own descriptions; it mentions 'exact percent-delta math' and tolerance overriding, but these are implied in the schema. No additional parameter detail is provided, so a 3 is appropriate.

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 states the tool's purpose: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources' and provides specific verb patterns like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that…'. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly covering two routing paths (SEC EDGAR for financial claims, grounded pipeline for others) and noting it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making its scope 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 says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains the fallback behavior for non-financial claims. It does not explicitly name alternative tools for when not to use it, but the guidance is strong and contextually clear.

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

All Openrouteservice 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

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The tool set is a chaotic mix of geographic routing, AI visibility, betting analysis, memory storage, and random utilities. Many tools overlap in purpose (e.g., multiple data lookup tools like ask_pipeworx, discover_tools, resolve_entity), and the domain is completely inconsistent, making it nearly impossible for an agent to distinguish which tool to use for a given task.

Naming Consistency1/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern; they mix snake_case (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx), camelCase (generate_llms_txt), and arbitrary verbs without a clear verb_noun structure. Some names are vague (processV2-like patterns are absent, but e.g., 'forget' is a single verb). This chaotic naming prevents an agent from predicting tool functions.

Tool Count1/5

With 27 tools covering routing, AI marketing, betting, memory, and more, the count is extremely mismatched for the server's implied purpose ('Openrouteservice'). Even ignoring the name, the number is high and the scope is far too broad, making the set unwieldy and unfocused.

Completeness1/5

No coherent domain can be inferred from the tool set; it is an arbitrary collection. The routing tools are present but overshadowed by unrelated tools. For any single domain (e.g., betting or routing), the surface is either incomplete or includes extraneous tools, leaving the set severely lacking a clear purpose.

Resources