Skip to main content
Glama

Regrid

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses two distinct execution paths, the full set of verdicts, and critical semantics for could_not_verify (no evidence for/against) and unsupported (no source coverage). It also surfaces potential failure via verification_error{stage,detail}, adding notable behavioral detail.

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 fairly long but well-structured, starting with natural-language examples and ending with important caller caveats. Every sentence conveys necessary information; the only minor critique is that the opening phrase list could be condensed, but it aids recognition.

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 semantics, and it does: verdict list, actual value with citation, reasoning, and the distinction between could_not_verify and unsupported. It also covers the two routing paths and error handling, making it complete for a complex verification tool.

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

Parameters5/5

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

While the schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, the description adds meaningful guidance: examples for claim format, and for tolerance_pct explains how it overrides implied wording, suggests 1–2 for hallucination detection, and notes the default cap of 5. This goes beyond schema boilerplate.

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 natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific trigger phrases and a structured verdict system. It distinguishes itself from siblings by detailing the SEC EDGAR fast path and grounded pipeline, and by noting it replaces 4–6 sequential calls.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and outlines which path applies (company-financial vs any other claim). It does not name alternative tools or exclusions, but the context is clear enough for most selection decisions.

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

All Regrid 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have detailed guidance, but several sets blur together: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, polymarket_edges and polymarket_arbitrage both scan for opportunities, and discover_tools/suggest_questions both serve discovery. The descriptions are strong enough to prevent frequent misselection, but the boundaries are not always crisp.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently snake_case, but the stylistic pattern is mixed: verb_noun names like generate_llms_txt and list_subscriptions sit alongside bare verbs like remember/forget and noun-phrase names like entity_profile, recent_alerts, and polymarket_arbitrage. Prefixes like polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, and regrid_parcel_* add some order, but the set is not uniform.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well above the point where a tool set remains easy to navigate, and several tools are near-duplicates or wrappers: ask_pipeworx_beta duplicates ask_pipeworx, scan_competitor_ai_presence is a wrapper around ai_visibility_check, and the prediction-market scanners overlap. The broad domain explains some of the bulk, but the surface still feels overweight.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide range of workflows: lookup, deep research, claim validation, entity profiles, comparisons, subscriptions, memory, prediction-market analysis, and parcel lookup. However, the Regrid parcel side is thin with only address and point lookup, and there is no direct tool for parcel-ID/owner/sales/tax queries. These are real gaps, though the universal router helps agents work around them.

Resources