Skip to main content
Glama

Owasp

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?

Despite annotations already declaring readOnly/idempotent, the description adds crucial behavioral detail: it explains the meaning of every verdict (confirmed, refuted, etc.), the distinction between could_not_verify (check did not happen, includes error) and unsupported (no source found), and the routing behavior (structured fast path vs. grounded pipeline). This goes far beyond the annotations and prevents misuse.

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 longer than typical, but every sentence serves a purpose: examples, routing, verdict semantics, error handling, and a note on replacing multiple calls. It is front-loaded with the most important usage guidance and avoids redundancy with the schema.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains return values: verdict list, actual value with citation, reasoning, and error details. It also covers failure modes and the fast-path vs. grounded logic, making it self-sufficient for an agent to invoke 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%, so parameters are already well documented. The description adds extra semantics for tolerance_pct: it overrides implied wording tolerance, suggests 1-2 for hallucination detection, and notes the default cap of 5. This is useful guidance beyond the schema's basic description.

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 precisely identifies the tool as natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with a clear verb ('verify') and resource ('factual claims'). It explicitly lists example queries and distinguishes its financial fast path (SEC EDGAR/XBRL) from the general grounded pipeline, making it distinct from siblings like deep_research or resolve_entity.

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?

It states when to use ('whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct') and provides routing rules for financial vs. other claims. It also warns about could_not_verify not being evidence. However, it does not explicitly mention which sibling tools to use instead for related tasks, so it lacks explicit exclusions or alternatives.

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

All Owasp 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
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools overlap in purpose, especially the Pipeworx data query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and the Polymarket betting tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, etc.). Descriptions help differentiate, but an agent may still struggle to choose the correct one.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tool names use snake_case and follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, validate_claim). Some deviations exist (e.g., entity_profile, cheat_sheet) but overall the pattern is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for a server named 'Owasp', as only 4 are directly OWASP-related (asvs_chapters, asvs_requirements, cheat_sheet, top10). The remaining 30 tools are for general data querying and betting, making the surface feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

The OWASP domain is partially covered with ASVS requirements, cheat sheets, and Top 10 lists. However, notable gaps exist, such as the OWASP Testing Guide, Software Assurance Maturity Model (SAMM), or risk assessment tools. The Pipeworx tools are comprehensive but not relevant to OWASP.

Resources