Skip to main content
Glama

Orcid

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context that is not in the annotations: the meaning of 'could_not_verify' (the check did not happen and must not be interpreted as evidence) versus 'unsupported' (no source covers it), plus the routing to structured vs. grounded pipelines. This goes beyond the safety profile and explains failure semantics.

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 front-loaded with natural-language triggers and organized into logical paragraphs. The 'IMPORTANT for callers' callout is justified because it clarifies critical output semantics that are easy to misinterpret. Every sentence adds value, and the structure aids comprehension, so a 4 is fitting.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns: verdict types, grounded/structured actual value with citation, and reasoning. It also covers edge cases (could_not_verify vs unsupported) and the two routing paths. For a complex tool with multiple behaviors, this is a complete description that leaves little ambiguity.

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 provides 100% coverage of both parameters with detailed descriptions (claim examples, tolerance_pct range and default). The tool description does not add additional parameter-level meaning beyond that; for instance, it mentions 'exact percent-delta math' but does not elaborate on the parameters themselves. Baseline 3 is correct because 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It uses specific verbs like 'check', 'verify', and 'confirm or refute', and explicitly distinguishes itself from sequential multi-step pipelines by noting it replaces 4–6 calls. This gives a specific verb+resource and differentiates it from siblings.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also details routing for company-financial claims versus other claims, but it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use this tool. This is clear context with no exclusions, so a 4 is appropriate.

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

All Orcid 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

C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The ORCID-specific tools (record, search, works, work) are reasonably distinct, but the set is dominated by unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket tools, several of which overlap heavily (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions). ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly described as currently identical to ask_pipeworx, creating genuine misselection risk.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed with no consistent pattern: nouns like 'record', 'work', 'works', and 'education' sit alongside snake_case verb phrases like 'search_within', 'validate_claim', and 'generate_llms_txt', plus proprietary 'ask_pipeworx' / 'pipeworx_feedback' names. While readable, the styles are inconsistent enough that an agent cannot predict tool names from the domain.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is far too many for a server scoped as 'Orcid': only roughly 7 tools (record, works, work, education, employment, search, search_within) actually relate to ORCID. The remaining ~30 tools cover prediction markets, npm dependencies, AI visibility, and generic Pipeworx/Polymarket functionality, which is a severe scope mismatch.

Completeness3/5

For read-only ORCID access, the surface covers full records, works, education, employment, and registry search, with semantic search over fetched records as a useful addition. However, it lacks other common ORCID activity types (funding, peer review, distinctions), profile metadata beyond summaries, and any create/update/delete lifecycle operations, leaving notable gaps for a server claiming to serve ORCID data.

Resources