Skip to main content
Glama

Statcan

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes beyond the annotations by disclosing critical behavioral details: the meaning of 'could_not_verify' (check did not happen, NOT evidence) and 'unsupported' (no source found), plus the pipeline behavior ('routed to the right live source, answered with verbatim evidence, then judged'). This is essential for correct interpretation of results and far exceeds the minimal readOnly/idempotent 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 well-structured, starting with example user phrases to aid recognition, then the purpose, then behavioral details, and a closing note about replacing multiple calls. It is a bit long, but every section adds necessary information; the opening phrase list is slightly redundant but helpful for triggering correct invocation.

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 value: verdict types, actual value with citation, and reasoning. It also clarifies the semantics of two verdicts (could_not_verify, unsupported) and warns about not misusing them. Given the tool's complexity (varying claim types, routing, edge cases), the description is remarkably complete and self-sufficient.

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?

The schema already covers both parameters fully (claim with examples, tolerance_pct with range and default). The description adds context like 'exact percent-delta math' but does not provide additional parameter-specific semantics that would raise the score above the baseline for high schema coverage. It is a standard case where the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 function ('natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources') with a specific verb ('validate') and resource ('factual claims'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls' and describing its dual-path routing for financial vs. other claims, making its scope clear.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct', giving a clear context. However, it does not mention when NOT to use this tool versus alternatives (e.g., deep research), so it lacks exclusions. It also explains the two distinct paths depending on claim type, which is additional guidance.

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

All Statcan 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are near-duplicates: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now, ask_pipeworx_grounded is the same router with an extra extraction pass, and deep_research/ask_pipeworx overlap for broad questions. The prediction-market tools and the StatCan series/cube/indicator tools also have fuzzy boundaries despite their detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names consistently use snake_case, but the set mixes verb-first names (resolve_entity, validate_claim, subscribe) with domain-prefixed noun-first names (statcan_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*) and one-off names like ai_visibility_check and generate_llms_txt. The domain prefixes help navigation, but there is no single predictable pattern and the ask_pipeworx_* suffix variants break the prefix convention.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold, and the server named Statcan carries only 8 StatCan-specific tools alongside general Pipeworx routing, prediction-market analysis, AI visibility, dependency scanning, memory, and subscription features. This feels like several servers merged into one rather than a well-scoped StatCan interface.

Completeness4/5

Within the apparent StatCan data-access scope, the surface is solid: listing cubes, metadata, cube data, vector series, headline indicators, CSV URLs, and change detection cover the core workflows. The broader Pipeworx/analysis layers also include discovery, grounded lookups, entity resolution, validation, subscriptions, and memory, with only minor gaps like server-side StatCan search and no way to execute on prediction-market signals.

Resources