Skip to main content
Glama

Plos

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/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description explains the critical distinction between 'could_not_verify' and 'unsupported', warns callers not to treat 'could_not_verify' as evidence, and discloses the structured vs grounded routing and citation behavior. No contradiction with 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 long but well-structured, front-loaded with trigger phrases, and each paragraph adds value—especially the caller warning about 'could_not_verify.' It is slightly verbose but justified for a tool with complex output semantics.

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 documents the return verdicts, the actual value plus citation, reasoning, and the important failure-mode semantics. It also explains the internal routing and why this tool replaces multiple calls, making it complete for agent invocation.

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%; both 'claim' and 'tolerance_pct' already have detailed schema descriptions. The tool description adds context about exact percent-delta math and tolerance implied by wording, but it does not add significant new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, warranting the baseline 3.

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 natural-language triggers and explicitly defines the tool as 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It distinguishes itself from sibling research/search tools by naming the two distinct verification paths and by stating it replaces 4–6 sequential calls.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also clarifies the routing for company-financial claims vs other factual claims, but does not name specific sibling alternatives or exclusions, so it stops short of 5.

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

All Plos 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

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical in function, while compare_entities and entity_profile both fan out across data sources. The PLOS-specific tools (article, search, recent) are distinct, but the broader set creates confusion about which entry point to use for general data questions.

Naming Consistency2/5

The naming is a mix of single-word nouns (article, recent), verb phrases (search_authored_by, validate_claim), and adjective_noun constructions (recent_changes, recent_alerts). While most multi-word names use snake_case, the lack of a consistent prefix or verb_pattern (e.g., some start with action verbs, others with data categories like polymarket_ or pipeworx_) makes the set feel inconsistent.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, the server is heavily over-scoped for a PLOS journal interface—only 4 tools (article, search, search_authored_by, recent) actually relate to PLOS. The remaining 31 tools form a broad Pipeworx/Polymarket data platform, which suggests the server is trying to do far more than its name implies.

Completeness2/5

For the stated domain (PLOS), the surface is thin: basic search, fetch, recent, and author search lack advanced features like citation metrics, journal browsing, or full-text download links. Conversely, the Pipeworx tools are extensive but unrelated to PLOS, so the set is simultaneously over-complete in unrelated areas and incomplete for its apparent purpose.

Resources