Skip to main content
Glama

Udbud Dk

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent), the description reveals critical behavior: the SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded fallback, the specific verdict list, and the vital distinction between 'could_not_verify' (check did not happen) and 'unsupported' (no source covers it). This is actionable behavioral transparency that prevents misuse.

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 dense and front-loaded with purpose and examples, then flows into operational details and caveats. Every sentence earns its place, especially the 'IMPORTANT for callers' note. It is long but justified by the tool's complexity; a 4 reflects that it is appropriately sized, not excessively padded.

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 must explain return values; it names all verdicts, the evidence with pipeworx:// citation, and reasoning. It also covers the two-path architecture, the tolerance override, and efficiency gains. This is as complete as needed for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%: both `claim` and `tolerance_pct` have thorough schema descriptions, including the example, the 0.5–50 range, the override semantics, and the hallucination-detection hint. The tool description adds no meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

Description states a specific verb+resource+scope: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources', with examples of user phrasings and a clear focus on fact-checking. It distinguishes itself from sibling research tools by narrowing to 'check whether something a user said is factually correct' rather than general research.

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 gives an explicit trigger: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also carves out two distinct internal routes (company financials vs. anything else). However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use it, so it stops 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 Udbud Dk 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 form near-overlapping clusters: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical in behavior, while ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research have overlapping scopes. The five polymarket tools also share a common prediction-market domain and could be confused despite detailed descriptions. Some boundaries between 'meta' tools such as discover_tools, suggest_questions, and ask_pipeworx are also fuzzy.

Naming Consistency3/5

The majority of tools use lowercase snake_case and many follow a verb_noun pattern (ask_pipexors, search_within, generate_llms_txt, destroy_tools), which is readable. However, there are inconsistent orderings like ai_visibility_check and dk_tender_search, plus several one-word verb tools (remember, forget, recall) alongside noun_verb forms. So the style is mostly regular but does not follow a single consistent pattern.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is very ot heavy for a general-purpose data platform, but the server name 'Udbud Dk' implies a narrow Danish tender scope. Only 3 of the 34 tools actually concern Danish procurement, while the rest form a broad question-answering, prediction-market, subscription, and memory platform. The count feels bloated and mismatched relative to the apparent server focus.

Completeness3/5

For the broad data domain, the server covers a wide range: lookup, grounded answers, entity resolution, fact-checking, company profiles, comparisons, change feeds, polymarket opportunities, subscriptions, and memory. But relative to the Danish tender scope implied by the server name, only search/detail/recent exist and missing functionality such as saved searches or notifications for new notices. There are also some odd gaps such as no-direct citation-lookup tool, but the generous question-answering tools compensate.

Resources