Skip to main content
Glama

Tenor

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds crucial interpretive context: the distinction between 'unsupported' (we looked, found nothing) and 'could_not_verify' (the check did not happen) and the requirement not to treat could_not_verify as evidence. This significantly enhances the agent's ability to reason about results.

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 lengthy, the description is tightly packed with high-value information. Each sentence serves a purpose: intent examples, routing logic, return values, crucial caller caveats, and efficiency rationale. The structure flows logically from what the tool does, to when to use it, to what it returns, to special-case warnings.

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?

For a complex verification tool with no output schema, the description fully covers return values (verdict values, actual value, citation, reasoning) and edge cases (could_not_verify with verification_error, unsupported). It also explains the internal routing and replaces 4-6 sequential calls, giving the agent complete situational awareness.

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 coverage is 100% and both parameters are documented. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining that tolerance_pct overrides the tolerance implied by the claim wording, gives a recommended range (1-2) for hallucination detection, and notes the default is capped at 5. This added semantics directly informs invocation decisions.

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 specifies the verb 'verify' and the resource 'natural-language factual claims' with concrete intent examples ('Is it true that…', 'fact check'). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling research/search tools by describing its integrated, single-call nature that replaces 4-6 sequential operations, making its 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?

Explicit guidance states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It further differentiates the fast path for company-financial claims versus the grounded pipeline for other claims, and clarifies when to use tolerance_pct for hallucination detection. No ambiguity remains about when this tool is appropriate.

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

All Tenor 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have nearly identical purposes: autocomplete and search_suggestions both return query completions, ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, and ai_visibility_check overlaps with scan_competitor_ai_presence. The detailed descriptions help for some, but the overlapping clusters create real confusion for an agent selecting a tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming is a mix of single-word nouns (search, featured, posts, categories) and snake_case verb phrases (resolve_entity, compare_entities, ask_pipeworx), with modifier suffixes like _beta and _grounded. While the snake_case is consistent where used, the overall pattern is not uniform across the server.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is far too many for a server named 'Tenor' whose core GIF API needs only a handful. Much of the surface belongs to Pipeworx data, polymarket analytics, memory, and subscriptions—scope that belongs in a different server or a clearly separated package.

Completeness5/5

The Pipeworx side is remarkably complete: query (ask_pipeworx), grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, validation, discovery, memory, subscriptions, and specialized polymarket tools all cover their domain thoroughly. The Tenor side has search, browse, categories, trending, suggestions, and post retrieval—no critical dead ends.

Resources