Skip to main content
Glama

Pexels

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 readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description warns that could_not_verify means the check did not happen and must not be treated as evidence, and explains unsupported as no source coverage. It also discloses the routing logic and the output verdicts, adding valuable nuance 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 dense but well-organized, front-loading example query patterns and purpose before diving into paths and caveats. Every sentence contributes either usage guidance, behavioral nuance, or output description, though it is slightly long.

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?

The description covers the input, the two processing paths, the verdict set, the special semantics of could_not_verify and unsupported, and the return format (verdict, value with citation, reasoning). Since there is no output schema, this disclosure is necessary and 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?

Both claim and tolerance_pct are fully documented in the schema, including examples and the tolerance's effect and default (coverage 100%). The description adds no additional parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 concrete query patterns ('Is it true that…' / 'fact check' / 'verify the claim') and clearly states the tool's function: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It distinguishes validate_claim from sibling research tools by specifying it replaces multiple sequential calls and focuses specifically on fact-checking claims.

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,' providing clear when-to-use context. It also differentiates two paths (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for financials, grounded pipeline for anything else), though it does not name sibling tools or state when not to use it.

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

All Pexels 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 are clearly from distinct domains (Pexels media, Pipeworx data, Polymarket betting, utility), but within each domain there is significant overlap (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded vs deep_research, or numerous polymarket tools). Detailed descriptions help differentiate, but some tools could still be confused.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming conventions vary: some tools use verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), others are single-word (photo, video), and some mix patterns (photo_curated vs photo_search). The Pexels subset is consistent, but the overall set includes tools from other ecosystems with different styles.

Tool Count2/5

With 38 tools, the set is bloated for a Pexels server. Only 8 tools are actually Pexels-related; the rest are Pipeworx data query, Polymarket betting, and utility tools. This mismatch makes the count inappropriate for the stated server purpose.

Completeness4/5

For the Pexels domain, the tool set covers search, fetch, and collections for both photos and videos, which is adequate. The unrelated tools add bloat but don't create gaps in the Pexels functionality. Minor missing features like uploads or editorial content are not critical.

Resources