Skip to main content
Glama

Uk Contracts

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, the description discloses crucial behavioral nuances: the distinction between 'could_not_verify' (check did not happen, carries verification_error) and 'unsupported' (no source found), the two verification paths, and the warning that 'could_not_verify' must not be shown as evidence. This adds significant transparency beyond the structured metadata.

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 dense but every sentence serves a purpose: trigger phrases, scope, routing logic, output specification, error semantics, and efficiency justification. It is front-loaded with the trigger phrases and purpose, and nothing is superfluous for the tool's 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?

Even without an output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values (verdict enum, actual value with citation, reasoning) and error semantics. It covers both claim categories and the fallback behavior, making the tool fully actionable. The description compensates for the lack of an output schema.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema already provides thorough descriptions for both parameters (claim and tolerance_pct). The description adds context that the schema lacks, such as tolerance_pct overriding implied wording, the 1–2 range for hallucination detection, and the default cap of 5. This meaningfully extends the parameter semantics.

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 opens with a clear statement of purpose: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources' and provides explicit trigger phrases. It goes on to specify the exact categories of claims (company-financial via SEC EDGAR+XBRL, anything else via grounded pipeline), making it distinct from sibling tools that serve general Q&A or 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 clearly states when to use: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains routing behavior for different claim types. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives for when NOT to use it (e.g., open-ended questions), though the scope is implicitly defined by the purpose.

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

All Uk Contracts 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools occupy nearly identical roles (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools), and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly the same router as ask_pipeworx. Company-data tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, validate_claim) and the Polymarket family also overlap heavily, making selection error-prone despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names are consistently lowercase snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (search_notices, get_notice, find_a_tender_recent, validate_claim). Even longer names like polymarket_edge_tracker and ask_pipeworx_grounded follow a predictable style with no camelCase or mixed conventions.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is already excessive for a focused server, and the 'Uk Contracts' name covers only five of them (search_notices, recent_notices, get_notice, find_a_tender_recent, find_a_tender_notice). The remaining 31 are unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket/AI-marketing utilities, so the count badly mismatches the apparent scope.

Completeness4/5

For UK public procurement, the five relevant tools provide search, recent listing, and full-detail retrieval for both Contracts Finder and Find a Tender Service, covering the core workflows well. Minor gaps include no tender-specific alert/subscription support and no server-side keyword search for the high-value FTS feed.

Resources