Skip to main content
Glama

randomuser

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 already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds crucial behavioral nuance: it clarifies the semantic difference between 'could_not_verify' (verification did not happen, carries an error) and 'unsupported' (no source found), and warns callers not to treat could_not_verify as evidence. It also details the returns (verdict, actual value, citation) and the efficiency claim (replaces 4–6 sequential calls), which goes well beyond the structured hints.

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 dense but well-structured: it begins with trigger phrases, then states the use case, routing logic, return format, a critical caller warning, and a strategic note about replacing sequential calls. Each sentence carries distinct information. It is slightly long but avoids redundancy, so it's appropriately concise for the complexity level.

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 must explain return values and semantics, and it does so thoroughly: verdict enum, citation, reasoning, and the special meanings of could_not_verify and unsupported. It also covers prerequisite nuances (financial vs. general claims) and error semantics. For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, this description leaves no critical gaps.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters fully with examples and defaults. The description adds extra value by explaining the tolerance_pct override for hallucination detection (1–2%) and the default cap of 5%, as well as giving concrete example claims. This enriches the schema definition, so it earns above baseline but not top marks since the schema already does much of the work.

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 trigger phrases ('Is it true that…' / 'fact check' / 'verify the claim…') and clearly states the tool's function: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming its specific output (verdict types, citation) and the dual-path approach for financial vs. other claims, which differentiates it from generic search/QA 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?

It explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' giving a clear when-to-use. It also delineates the two routing paths (SEC EDGAR for company-financial claims; grounded pipeline otherwise). However, it does not explicitly mention when not to use it or name alternative sibling tools, so it's strong but not maximal.

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

All randomuser 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Multiple tools have nearly identical purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly described as identical, and ask_pipeworx_grounded differs only in grounding. generate_users and generate_by_gender overlap, as do ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence and the several polymarket_* tools that all target edge detection and arbitrage. An agent would struggle to select the correct tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

All names use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some start with verbs (generate_users, resolve_entity, validate_claim), some are nouns (entity_profile, deep_research, recent_changes), and some are compound noun phrases (ai_visibility_check, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage). There is no predictable verb_noun structure across the set.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well above the 'too many' threshold, and the set includes many meta-tools, memory helpers, and niche prediction-market tools. While the broad domain might justify some diversity, the count feels bloated and dilutes the server's focus, especially given the server name suggests only random user generation.

Completeness4/5

For the apparent core domain (data lookups, research, prediction market analysis, subscriptions), the tool surface is quite comprehensive: it covers direct queries, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, claim verification, discovery, trends, memory, and subscription management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct CRUD for user-generated profiles beyond creation), but overall the feature set feels well covered.

Resources