Skip to main content
Glama

postcodes

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. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Beyond the safety annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral nuances: the meaning of 'could_not_verify' as a pipeline failure (not evidence), the distinction with 'unsupported', the existence of an error payload, and the dual structured/grounded pipeline. This is valuable, non-obvious context that agents need.

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 longer than average but every sentence adds substance—examples, pipeline details, verdict semantics, and caller warnings. It is well-structured with an 'IMPORTANT for callers' note, though it could be tightened slightly for readability without losing value.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully describes return values (verdict, actual value, reasoning, error fields) and explains edge cases (could_not_verify vs. unsupported). It also covers the tool's relationship to an alternative multi-step workflow, making it very complete for a tool of this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

While the schema covers both parameters with descriptions, the tool description adds important semantic details: tolerance_pct overrides claim wording, is capped at 5 by default, and 'set 1–2 for hallucination detection.' This goes beyond the schema's documentation and helps agents choose correct parameter values.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by focusing on fact-checking with verdicts, and even notes that it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making its niche unambiguous.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains the conditional routing for financial vs. other claims, but does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide exclusions, so it falls slightly 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 postcodes 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping responsibilities: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded all serve similar lookup purposes. entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes all retrieve company data. Several Polymarket tools overlap in edge detection. The large number of tools with fuzzy boundaries makes it difficult for an agent to select the correct one.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are a mix of conventions: some use verb_noun (lookup_postcode, validate_postcode, resolve_entity), others are verb_phrase (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, suggest_questions), and a few are compound (polymarket_arbitrage, scan_competitor_ai_presence). No uniform pattern, though the structure is readable.

Tool Count1/5

Despite being named 'postcodes', only 4 of 35 tools are directly about postcodes. The vast majority belong to a broad data platform (Pipeworx) with specialized tools for finance, betting, news, etc. The count is excessive for a focused service, and many tools are only useful for users of that platform, leading to clutter.

Completeness2/5

For a postcode server, the tools cover basic needs (lookup, nearest, random, validate). However, the server's actual scope is much larger; within that broader scope, there are notable gaps: no general text search, no direct access to raw SEC filings, and many tools depend on paid plans or external accounts. The coverage is uneven and incomplete for a unified data platform.

Resources