Skip to main content
Glama

Quotable

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by explaining critical behavioral nuances: the semantics of each verdict (especially could_not_verify vs unsupported), the two distinct processing paths (SEC EDGAR for financial claims, grounded pipeline for others), and the caveat that could_not_verify must not be used as evidence. This aligns with and enriches the openWorldHint annotation.

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: it opens with trigger phrases, states purpose, gives usage, explains the pipeline, lists verdicts, highlights a critical caveat, and closes with an efficiency claim. Every sentence contributes, though a bit verbose; it earns a 4 rather than 5 due to the length, but there is no fluff.

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 compensates by enumerating the verdict types, the inclusion of citations and reasoning, and explaining error states. It also covers both claim categories, tolerance behavior, and the tool's advantage over sequential calls. This is a complete and self-sufficient description for a complex tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description reiterates the tolerance_pct override and provides examples of the claim parameter, but it does not add new parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already states. It is adequate but not enhanced.

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 natural-language claim verification tool against authoritative sources, with specific examples of user intents. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly framing it as fact-checking, and even mentions replacing 4–6 sequential calls, which sets it apart from generic research or ask tools.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also outlines the two routing paths for different claim types. However, it does not explicitly list when-not-to-use or name alternative sibling tools, so it misses the full 'alternatives' criterion for a 5.

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

All Quotable 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

The ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) is highly overlapping—two of them are explicitly identical right now—and the six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research create unclear boundaries between prediction-market analysis tools. Company-focused tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, resolve_entity) also partially overlap in what they fetch, making tool selection error-prone.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tool names follow a clear snake_case pattern with descriptive verbs (search_quotes, resolve_entity, validate_claim, subscribe, unsubscribe). There is good use of family prefixes like polymarket_* and pipeworx_*, though the Pipeworx family mixes prefix and suffix placement (ask_pipeworx vs. pipeworx_feedback), which is a minor inconsistency.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is far too many for a server named 'Quotable', especially since only 4 tools (get_authors, list_tags, random_quote, search_quotes) relate to quotes. The rest span data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, and dependency scanning—an extremely broad, unfocused scope that overwhelms the apparent purpose.

Completeness3/5

The quote-related surface is minimal but functional (random, search, authors, tags), though missing obvious operations like get_quote_by_id. The data-lookup and prediction-market domains are thoroughly covered with grounding, research, arbitrage, and fill-risk tools, so the broader set is complete—but it does not serve the server's stated identity as a quotes provider.

Resources