Skip to main content
Glama

Qrcode

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?

Annotations only declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent; the description goes far beyond that by detailing the two routing paths, the full verdict enumeration, and the crucial caller caveat that could_not_verify means the check did not happen and must not be presented as evidence. This is exactly the behavioral nuance an agent needs and that annotations cannot capture.

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 front-loaded with the purpose and common query patterns, then flows into routing, return values, and error distinctions. It is longer than average but every sentence contributes useful information. The 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls' line is a mild value-add that could be trimmed, but overall it is well-structured and not bloated.

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 the burden of explaining return values; it lists verdict types, the actual value with citation, reasoning, and error semantics (could_not_verify vs unsupported). It also explains the two routing paths and the replacement of a multi-step sequence. This gives the agent a complete mental model for invoking and interpreting the tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are described, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context about tolerance_pct: it can override the implied tolerance, recommends values 1–2 for hallucination detection, and notes the default cap of 5. This goes beyond the schema's dry parameter description, justifying a 4.

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 states the tool's function: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with a specific verb ('validate'/'verify') and resource ('claim'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by describing a single-call fact-checking tool that handles company-financial claims via SEC EDGAR and all other claims via a grounded pipeline, returning a verdict and evidence.

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' and adds that it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, implying when it is more efficient than a multi-step pipeline. However, it does not name sibling tools or state when NOT to use this tool, 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 Qrcode 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool families blur together: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route questions to the same underlying data sources for slightly different modes, and the six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research all orbit prediction-market opportunity-finding. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent would need to read deeply to reliably distinguish them.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are all readable snake_case and some clusters are consistent (ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), but the set mixes verb-first names like create_qr and validate_claim with noun-first names like entity_profile, recent_alerts, polymarket_edges, and pipeworx_trending. There is no single predictable naming convention.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is above the 25+ threshold and reads as a full platform rather than a focused tool. For a server labeled Qrcode, only two tools are QR-related, so the count is severely inflated even if the data-research breadth is defensible.

Completeness2/5

The Pipeworx data-research surface is fairly complete: query, grounded verification, entity profiling, comparisons, recent changes, discovery, memory, and subscriptions are all represented. But the QR domain for the stated server purpose is only create/read with no batch, styling, or management, and the overall set has no coherent domain to be complete against.

Resources