Skip to main content
Glama

Take The Meeting

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. Added

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description does not contradict them. It adds valuable behavioral detail: verdict taxonomy, the distinction between could_not_verify (check did not happen) and unsupported (no source), citation behavior, and the error payload. This goes well beyond the annotations.

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?

The description is long but every sentence earns its place. It opens with search-like examples, then states the trigger condition, explains the two routing paths, lists the verdict output, and ends with an important caveat and the efficiency benefit. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains what the tool returns (verdicts, value with citation, reasoning) and clarifies ambiguous verdict states. It also covers the underlying routing and the error case, making the tool self-sufficient for an agent.

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?

Schema covers both parameters, but the description adds meaningful usage guidance: it explains tolerance_pct overrides the implied tolerance, suggests setting 1–2 for hallucination detection, and clarifies the default (capped at 5). This is exactly the extra semantic value expected.

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 concrete example queries. It distinguishes itself from sibling search/ask tools by stating it replaces a 4-6 step pipeline and returns a verdict, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains the division of labor: company-financial claims use the SEC EDGAR path, all other claims fall through to a grounded pipeline. This gives clear when-to-use context and implies when not to use (non-claim queries).

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

All Take The Meeting 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 distinct, well-documented roles, but the set includes two effectively identical routers (ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta, with the latter explicitly matching the former right now) and a dense cluster of six Polymarket tools that an agent must read carefully to choose among. This is more than a minor overlap, though the detailed descriptions prevent it from being complete chaos.

Naming Consistency3/5

Everything is snake_case, which is a plus, but the patterns are inconsistent: some tools are verb_noun (resolve_entity, validate_claim, list_subscriptions), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, bet_research, recent_alerts), some use brand prefixes (ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), and take_the_meeting_evaluate is a sentence-like outlier. The prefixes do provide grouping, but the naming doesn't give a predictable action structure.

Tool Count2/5

32 top-level tools is above the 25+ threshold and will bloat an agent's tool-selection surface, especially because the server name 'Take The Meeting' suggests a narrow meeting tool while 31 of the tools are unrelated Pipeworx/data features. Even as a broad data-research server, several tools could be collapsed (the ask variants, the Polymarket family), so the count feels inflated.

Completeness2/5

For the purpose implied by the server name and the lone meeting tool, the surface is severely incomplete: there is no way to list or fetch meetings, access calendar/attendee context, or do anything beyond evaluating one set of supplied parameters. For the broad data-research domain that most tools actually serve, the read/research side is rich, but that is a completely different purpose from 'Take The Meeting', leaving the meeting feature as a disconnected dead end.

Resources