Skip to main content
Glama

Passive Aggression

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. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses critical non-obvious behaviors: could_not_verify indicates the check didn't happen and must not be treated as evidence; unsupported means no source coverage. It also reveals the dual-path architecture (structured SEC EDGAR vs grounded pipeline) and the presence of citations and error details. The annotations already cover read-only/idempotent safety, so this added context goes well beyond structured hints.

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 efficient, organized with trigger phrases, purpose, routing, output semantics, and a caller warning. Every sentence adds value, and the structure front-loads the core purpose. It is dense but not bloated, appropriate for a tool with no output 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 covers return values: six verdicts, actual value with citation, reasoning, and verification_error details. It also explains the two pipeline paths and the meaning of could_not_verify vs unsupported. This is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool 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% with detailed descriptions for both parameters (`claim` with examples, `tolerance_pct` with range and default). The description itself doesn't add parameter-specific meaning beyond mentioning 'exact percent-delta math', so the schema carries the burden. Baseline 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. It lists explicit trigger phrases ('fact check', 'verify the claim that…') and distinguishes itself by focusing on checking the truth of a user's statement. It also notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, further clarifying its specific role among sibling 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 gives direct usage guidance: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains the routing logic for company-financial claims vs other claims, providing clear context for when the tool applies. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools to avoid or exclusions for open-ended research, which would push it to a 5.

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

All Passive Aggression 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, particularly the various data query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, bet_research, etc.) that share similar functionality with subtle differences. The detailed descriptions help but the boundaries are not always clear, making it hard for an agent to reliably select the correct tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming follows a mix of patterns: some tools use consistent verb_noun (subscribe, unsubscribe, remember, recall) but others are inconsistent (ask_pipeworx vs deep_research vs entity_profile). The main data tools have a common prefix but diverge in style, and the presence of tools like passive_aggression_detect and generate_llms_txt adds further inconsistency.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools, the server feels bloated. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., the ask_pipeworx variants, the Polymarket tools). The inclusion of tangential tools like passive_aggression_detect and generate_llms_txt suggests scope creep. A typical well-scoped server would have 10-15 tools.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide range of data access and some auxiliary functions (memory, subscriptions, feedback), but there are notable gaps like user authentication and data visualization. The addition of an unrelated sentiment analysis tool makes the surface feel incomplete for a focused data server.

Resources