Skip to main content
Glama

Pombase

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 description goes well beyond the annotations, detailing the meaning of each verdict, especially the critical distinction between 'could_not_verify' (check did not happen, not evidence) and 'unsupported' (no source exists). It also explains the internal routing to SEC EDGAR/XBRL vs. the grounded pipeline, adding meaningful behavioral context.

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 lengthy but well-structured, front-loaded with trigger phrases and followed by usage, routing, return values, and important caller warnings. Though some phrases are redundant (e.g., the list of natural-language triggers could be shorter), each section earns its place for a complex tool.

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 the tool's complexity and lack of an output schema, the description fully covers the invocation context: what inputs are expected, how routing works, what verdicts can be returned, what citations look like, and how to interpret error cases. It is complete enough for an agent to select and use 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 description coverage is 100%, and both parameters ('claim' and 'tolerance_pct') are already well documented in the schema. The tool description adds only minimal extra meaning (e.g., 'exact percent-delta math') beyond what the schema states, so it meets the baseline but does not elevate it.

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 identifies the tool as a fact-verification service with a specific verb ('validate', 'verify') and resource ('natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by describing the unique verdict output and by positioning it as replacing 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 states when to use it: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also provides conditional routing guidance (company-financial claims vs. any other factual claim) and clarifies how it consolidates multiple steps, implicitly differentiating it from sequential lookup tools.

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

All Pombase 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

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes, notably ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_beta vs ask_pipeworx_grounded, and the cluster of polymarket tools covers adjacent prediction-market analysis territory. The PomBase-specific tools are distinct, but the overall set creates real selection ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names follow a readable snake_case style and many use verb-first patterns, but there is notable mixing: ask_pipeworx is a brand-style exception, entity_profile and polymarket_arbitrage are noun-first, and remember/recall/forget form an inconsistent trio. Not chaotic, but not a clean predictable convention.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is excessive for a server named Pombase, where only get_gene and get_reference actually serve that domain. Even as a broad data-research server, the count is above the 25-tool threshold and includes many auxiliary utilities that feel bolted on rather than part of a focused surface.

Completeness2/5

The PomBase-specific coverage is severely thin: only systematic-ID gene lookup and PubMed-ID reference lookup, with no gene-name search, annotations browsing, phenotype data, or sequence access. The broader Pipeworx surface is extensive, but for the apparent Pombase purpose, agents will frequently hit dead ends.

Resources