Skip to main content
Glama

Pixabay

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?

The annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) are reinforced and expanded by the description. It discloses critical behavioral nuances: the distinction between can't-verify (could_not_verify with verification_error) and unsupported (no source found), the structured vs. grounded routing, and the return of citations. This goes well beyond the annotations and prevents misinterpretation of the 'could_not_verify' verdict.

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 trigger phrases and key purpose, then systematically detailing pipeline variants, verdict values, and critical caveats. Every sentence contributes useful information, though the length is somewhat high for a simple read-only tool. It earns a 4 for being efficient and structured.

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 carries full responsibility for explaining return values. It lists all possible verdicts, mentions the actual value with citation, reasoning, and the special error field. It also explains the two processing paths and the meaning of unsupported. This is complete enough for an agent to understand what the tool will return and how to interpret it.

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% for both parameters, so the schema already fully documents claim and tolerance_pct. The description adds some context about the natural-language nature of the claim and tolerance behavior, but this largely echoes the schema. It does not provide significant additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 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 opens with explicit trigger phrases ('Is it true that…', 'fact check', 'verify the claim that…') and states the core function: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by centering on fact-checking, and the first sentence names the resource (authoritative sources) and action (verify).

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 states when to use the tool: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also outlines two distinct pathways (SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded pipeline) and notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it, so it falls just short of a 5.

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

All Pixabay 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set contains multiple near-duplicate lookups: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded all do the same routing with minor variations, while deep_research and validate_claim also overlap in information retrieval. The two Pixabay search tools are distinct, but the abundance of overlapping data-lookup tools creates real ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

All names use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb_noun (search_images, validate_claim), others are noun-based (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback), and variants like ask_pipeworx_beta/grounded introduce ad-hoc suffixing. The naming does not follow a single predictable convention.

Tool Count1/5

With 33 tools, the count is far excessive for a Pixabay server. Only 2 tools (search_images, search_videos) actually relate to Pixabay; the remaining 31 are unrelated Pipeworx data, Polymarket, memory, and subscription tools. The scope is a severe mismatch.

Completeness1/5

For a server named Pixabay, the surface is severely incomplete: only basic image/video search is provided, with no tool for fetching details, downloading, managing collections, or any other lifecycle operation. Meanwhile, the Pipeworx domain is over-covered, but that is irrelevant to the server's stated purpose.

Resources