Skip to main content
Glama

Spain Tenders

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even with readOnlyHint and openWorldHint annotations, the description adds significant behavior: it details the internal routing logic, the exact verdict values returned, and the critical distinction between could_not_verify (failure, with verification_error) and unsupported (no source exists). This goes far beyond annotation hints, ensuring callers understand edge cases.

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 every sentence earns its place: query phrasing, usage trigger, routing explanation, return contract, caller warnings, and performance note. It is well-structured and front-loaded with examples, though it could be trimmed slightly without losing critical information.

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 possible verdicts, mentioning the actual value and citation, and explaining error semantics. It also conveys the tool's efficiency (replaces 4–6 calls). No significant gaps remain for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; however, the description adds valuable semantics for tolerance_pct: tells the caller it overrides claim wording, suggests 1–2 for hallucination detection, and reveals default behavior (implied by wording, capped at 5). Claim also gets helpful examples in the schema, though the description reinforces them. This extra semantic context justifies a 4.

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 many natural-language variations of the use case ('Is it true that…', 'fact check', etc.), then explicitly states 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It clearly identifies the tool's specific job (fact-checking with verdicts) and distinguishes it from simpler search or comparison tools by noting it replaces multiple 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains the two-path routing (structured SEC EDGAR/XBRL for company financial claims vs. grounded pipeline for any other factual claim), and includes concrete advice on tolerance_pct for hallucination detection, which helps the agent configure the tool correctly.

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

All Spain Tenders 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

Several clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical routers (the beta currently matches stable exactly), and the Polymarket tools all circle around edge/arbitrage detection with fuzzy boundaries. The Spain tender tools and utility tools are distinct, but the overlapping clusters are enough to cause misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are uniformly snake_case and some families share clear prefixes (es_tender_*, ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*). However, conventions are mixed: verb-led names like compare_entities and subscribe sit alongside noun phrases like entity_profile and bet_research, so there is no consistent verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is already in the heavy range, but the bigger problem is scope: a server named 'Spain Tenders' ships 34 tools, only 3 of which are actually Spanish-procurement tools. The rest are a broad Pipeworx/Polymarket/utility toolkit, making the count inappropriate for the declared purpose.

Completeness3/5

The three es_tender_* tools cover the core discovery workflows: keyword search, recent notices, and status filtering with budgets, deadlines, and URLs. Notable gaps remain, though: no tender detail-by-id tool, no tender-specific subscription/alerting, and no explicit region, CPV, or date-range filters.

Resources