Skip to main content
Glama

swapi

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.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses significant behavioral context beyond annotations: the dual-path routing, the complete verdict list, and the crucial distinction between could_not_verify (a pipeline failure, not evidence) and unsupported (no source coverage). It also warns callers not to treat could_not_verify as evidence, which is valuable transparency not captured in the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent flags.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Although long, every sentence earns its place: trigger phrases are front-loaded, the routing and error semantics are organized clearly, and the IMPORTANT callout for could_not_verify is essential. The structure is efficient and easy to scan for a tool with this 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 covers return values (verdict, actual value, citation, reasoning) and edge cases (could_not_verify vs unsupported). It also explains its role as a consolidator of multiple sequential calls, giving the agent complete context for when and how to use it.

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 input schema covers both parameters (claim and tolerance_pct) with full descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description mentions 'exact percent-delta math' but adds no parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at baseline.

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 natural-language claim verification service with trigger phrases like 'fact check' and 'true or false.' It distinguishes it from sibling tools by explaining that it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making its purpose specific and actionable.

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 the tool: whenever the agent needs to check whether a user's statement is factually correct, and it describes the two routing paths (SEC EDGAR for company financials, grounded pipeline for other claims). However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or provide when-not-to-use guidance, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All swapi 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

The tool set mixes two unrelated domains (Star Wars and Pipeworx data services), which is initially confusing. Within the Pipeworx suite, tools like ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded are clearly differentiated, but some overlap exists (e.g., deep_research vs. compare_entities both do multi-source lookups). Overall, most tools have distinct purposes, but the domain mismatch lowers clarity.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools use snake_case consistently (e.g., ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, resolve_entity). The naming pattern is mostly verb_noun or descriptive_compound, which is predictable. Minor deviation: some tools start with a verb (ask_pipeworx) while others start with a noun (entity_profile), but the style is uniform.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is on the high side but not unreasonable for a data-heavy server. However, the set covers two distinct domains (Star Wars and Pipeworx), making it feel bloated. The count could be reduced by separating the domains or pruning rarely-used tools.

Completeness3/5

The Pipeworx side appears comprehensive, covering queries, profiles, comparisons, subscriptions, alerts, and memory. The Star Wars side is incomplete—it lacks tools for vehicles, species, or individual characters (only search_people exists). The overall surface has gaps in one of its two domains.

Resources