Skip to main content
Glama

Openverse

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, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description goes further by explaining the two pipelines (structured fast path with percent-delta math vs grounded fallback), the exact verdict vocabulary, and the crucial distinction between could_not_verify (verification_error, no evidence) and unsupported (no source). This adds substantial behavioral context beyond the 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 every sentence earns its place: user-facing trigger phrases, scope, routing logic, return value specification, and an IMPORTANT caller warning about could_not_verify. It is structured with clear paragraphs and front-loaded with the most recognizable query patterns. No wasted words.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description fully carries the burden of explaining return values. It lists all verdicts, mentions the grounded/structured value with citation, explains the meaning of error-prone outcomes (could_not_verify, unsupported), and covers the routing behavior. For a tool of this complexity, this is complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters (claim and tolerance_pct) already documented in detail, including examples for claim and the range/default behavior for tolerance_pct. The main description adds example claim strings but does not elaborate further on parameter semantics, so it stays at the baseline 3 as the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 natural-language example queries ("Is it true that…", "fact check") and defines the tool as "natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources." It clearly states the action (verify), the resource (authoritative sources), and the two routing paths (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for financial claims vs grounded pipeline for others), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description explicitly states when to use: "Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct." It also explains the automatic routing for different claim types and notes that the tool replaces 4–6 sequential calls, providing a clear use-case rationale. While it doesn't name alternative tools, the trigger condition is explicit and unambiguous.

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

All Openverse 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools occupy the same functional space: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer factual questions from Pipeworx data, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now. The prediction-market tools also heavily overlap in purpose, as do ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence. Only the Openverse media tools and memory/subscription tools are cleanly distinguishable.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case, but the naming conventions are mixed: verb_noun tools like search_images and resolve_entity coexist with bare verbs like remember, recall, forget, and subscribe, plus noun compounds like entity_profile, polymarket_edges, and bet_research. Subfamilies such as polymarket_* and the audio/image tools are internally consistent, but there is no single predictable pattern across the full set.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools exceeds the 25+ threshold and feels inflated for the surface, especially since several could be consolidated: there are three ask_pipeworx variants and five overlapping prediction-market tools. The Openverse-specific core is only 6 tools, with 31 mostly unrelated Pipeworx and utility tools attached, making the server feel like a grab-bag rather than a purpose-built Openverse integration.

Completeness4/5

Each embedded subdomain covers its main lifecycle well: Openverse has search/get/related for images and audio, memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/list/unsubscribe/recent_alerts, and research has ask, grounded, deep_research, entity_profile, compare_entities, resolve_entity, and validate_claim. Minor gaps exist—notably no Openverse video/collection tooling and no explicit memory update—but agents can work around them without hitting dead ends.

Resources