Skip to main content
Glama

Serper

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses deep behavioral details beyond annotations: the exact verdict types, the meaning of could_not_verify (with verification_error) and unsupported, the use of verbatim evidence with pipeworx:// citations, and the two distinct execution paths. This enriches the read-only, open-world annotations without contradicting them.

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 long but densely informative. It front-loads with user-intent examples, then covers behavior, return values, and critical error semantics. While it could be trimmed slightly, every sentence earns its place given the tool's 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 fully explains the return values (verdict list, actual value, citation, reasoning) and the distinction between failure modes. It also covers the fallback pipeline and the benefit of replacing multi-step calls, making it complete for the tool's scope.

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 description coverage is 100% for both parameters, so the description need not repeat parameter details. However, the tool description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides — it mentions exact percent-delta math but does not tie this to tolerance_pct. Thus baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 purpose: verifying natural-language factual claims. It provides multiple example phrasings and explicitly distinguishes this tool from general search/ask tools by positioning it as the claim-verification endpoint, noting it replaces several 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 Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It further distinguishes between company-financial claims (SEC EDGAR fast path) and any other factual claim (grounded pipeline), and gives advice on setting tolerance_pct for hallucination detection.

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

All Serper 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) has blurry boundaries — ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx today — and the six Polymarket tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_fill_risk, etc.) all operate in the opportunity-detection space. Extremely detailed descriptions help, but an agent could easily select the wrong variant.

Naming Consistency3/5

Snake_case is used throughout and the polymarket_* and pipeworx_* clusters are internally consistent, but the set mixes verb-first names (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, validate_claim) with noun-first names (entity_profile, recent_changes, news, places) roughly evenly. The 'beta' suffix on a stable production tool and the adjective-noun 'deep_research' add further inconsistency.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools this exceeds the 25+ threshold, and the count is padded with redundancy: three near-identical ask_pipeworx variants, ai_visibility_check wrapped by scan_competitor_ai_presence, and six overlapping Polymarket tools. The unusually broad multi-domain scope justifies more tools than a typical server, but several clusters could be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The surface is thorough for a read-only data-access gateway: universal routing, grounded verification, entity resolution/profiles/comparisons, web/news/maps search, prediction-market analysis, memory CRUD, and a full subscription lifecycle. Minor gaps exist (no direct fetch tool for pipeworx:// citation URIs, no image/video Serper endpoints) but agents can work around them.

Resources