Skip to main content
Glama

Politics Feeds

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond those: the two-tier routing, the exact verdict enum, the distinction between could_not_verify and unsupported, the presence of verification_error{stage,detail}, and the instruction not to present a failed check as evidence. This is high-value context not available from annotations alone.

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 a single long paragraph but every sentence carries useful information: trigger phrases, routing logic, return values, error semantics, and the efficiency benefit. It is front-loaded with the use case and alternatives. It is somewhat long, but there is no filler or repetition, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description compensates thoroughly by listing the verdict enum, the structure of the result (grounded/structured value + citation + reasoning), the failure semantics, and the coverage scope. It also explains the two processing pipelines and the replacement of multiple sequential calls, making the tool's behavior clear even without seeing the output schema.

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?

The input schema already documents both parameters fully with examples, constraints, and defaults (100% coverage). The description reinforces the purpose of the claim parameter and mentions tolerance override behavior only implicitly; it adds no significant new parameter semantics beyond what the schema provides. Therefore a 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 concrete natural-language triggers ('Is it true that…', 'fact check') and states the core function: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It goes beyond a simple definition by distinguishing itself from sibling tools—it covers both the SEC/XBRL fast path for company financials and the grounded pipeline for all other claims, and explicitly notes 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?

The description explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also provides internal routing guidance (company financial claims vs. other claims) and a critical usage warning about not treating could_not_verify as evidence. It does not name alternative tools, but the 'replaces 4–6 sequential calls' note effectively implies when to choose this tool over chaining other operations.

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

All Politics Feeds 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct jobs and the descriptions are unusually explicit about routing, but there are overlapping entry points: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all sit in the same query/research space. ask_pipeworx_beta even states it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, which makes some boundaries genuinely ambiguous despite strong descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set is uniformly snake_case and has useful families like polymarket_* and pipeworx_*, plus many clear verb_noun names (list_feeds, read_feed, resolve_entity, validate_claim). However, roughly a third of tools use noun-led or adjective-led names (entity_profile, deep_research, recent_alerts, polymarket_arbitrage), so the pattern is readable but mixed.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is far beyond what a 'Politics Feeds' server needs, and a large portion of the surface (npm dependency scanning, AI visibility, memory, prediction markets, LLM text generation) is unrelated to the stated purpose. This feels like a kitchen-sink monolith rather than a scoped feed server.

Completeness4/5

Within its actual implied purpose as a broad Pipeworx data-research platform, the lifecycle is well covered: discover, resolve, ask, ground, research, compare, validate, monitor, subscribe, and remember are all present. The gaps are minor—no update-subscription operation and no direct cross-feed search for the feeds named by the server—so agents can work around them.

Resources