Skip to main content
Glama

recipes

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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description discloses critical behavioral details: the dual routing paths (SEC EDGAR vs grounded pipeline), the exact verdict enumeration, and — crucially — the semantics of could_not_verify (not evidence) and unsupported (no source coverage). This is highly valuable for safe usage.

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 somewhat long, leading with a list of synonyms that could be condensed into a single phrase like 'natural-language claim verification.' Still, every subsequent sentence adds substantive detail about routing, verdicts, and error semantics, so it's structurally efficient for the complexity.

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 full burden of explaining return values and error states, and it does so thoroughly — verdict list, actual value, citation, reasoning, and the critical could_not_verify vs unsupported distinction. Combined with high schema coverage and annotations, it is contextually complete for an agent to safely invoke.

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?

Both parameters are fully documented in the JSON schema (100% coverage), including examples and default behavior. The description adds no additional parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides; the mention of 'exact percent-delta math' and tolerance overrides is already in the schema. Thus a baseline 3.

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 claim verification tool with specific verbs ('verify', 'fact check') and resource ('natural-language factual claims' against 'authoritative sources'). It distinguishes itself by explaining the two routing paths and how it replaces 4-6 sequential calls, differentiating from sibling research 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 states when to use: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also delineates company-financial vs other claims, providing a clear use-case landscape. However, it doesn't explicitly name alternative tools for other use cases, so it's slightly below a 5.

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

All recipes 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a highly specific purpose with detailed descriptions, making them easily distinguishable. Overlaps are minimal; for instance, Pipeworx and Polymarket tools have distinct roles within their domains.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), but a few single-word names (e.g., forget, recall) deviate slightly, causing minor inconsistency.

Tool Count2/5

The server is named 'recipes' but contains only 4 recipe-related tools out of 34. The majority cover unrelated domains like finance, betting, and data queries, making the scope overly broad and misaligned with the server name.

Completeness2/5

For the 'recipes' domain, essential CRUD operations and features like meal planning are missing. While the general tool set is extensive, it lacks critical recipe-related functionality, leaving significant gaps for the intended purpose.

Resources