Skip to main content
Glama

Uk Food Hygiene

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?

Beyond the read-only/open-world annotations, the description discloses critical behavioral semantics: the difference between could_not_verify (pipeline failure, not evidence) and unsupported (no source), the routing logic for financial vs other claims, and the return structure. It also clarifies the meaning of verdicts, which is valuable for correct interpretation.

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?

Though lengthy, every sentence delivers necessary information: triggers, use case, routing logic, return types, error semantics, and efficiency benefit. The structure flows logically from invocation to interpretation, with clear delimiters for distinct concerns.

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?

Given no output schema, the description fully enumerates the return values (verdict, actual value, citation, reasoning) and distinguishes error cases. It covers the tool's scope (both fast path and fallback), making it self-sufficient for an agent to invoke and interpret results correctly.

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 provides 100% coverage with rich descriptions for both claim and tolerance_pct, including defaults and intentional usage. The main description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond referencing exact percent-delta math and grounding, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 concrete trigger phrases and explicitly states its job: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It also distinguishes itself from alternatives by noting it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making the tool's singularity clear.

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 clearly states when to use it ('Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct') and describes the automation of a multi-step pipeline. However, it doesn't name specific sibling tools or provide explicit when-not-to-use guidance, though the context is strong enough to infer.

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

All Uk Food Hygiene 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 blur together: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer questions over the same data, and five polymarket_* tools overlap on edge detection and arbitrage. Descriptions help somewhat, but the boundaries are subtle and the server name 'Uk Food Hygiene' adds a layer of confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case, but conventions vary widely: brand-style names (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_feedback), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes), verb_noun pairs (list_subscriptions, validate_claim), and bare verbs (recall, forget). It is readable but does not follow one predictable pattern.

Tool Count1/5

A server named 'Uk Food Hygiene' has 33 tools, of which only two (uk_food_hygiene_search, uk_food_hygiene_details) relate to food hygiene. The rest are a grab-bag of Pipeworx platform utilities, prediction-market tools, memory helpers, and subscription features — an extreme mismatch between count and stated scope.

Completeness2/5

The two food hygiene tools cover search and detail lookup, which handles the core use case, but the broader tool surface has notable gaps: citation URIs are returned but no fetch/read tool exists, and the unrelated domains (prediction markets, company research, AI visibility) are deep in some places and absent in others. The overall surface feels like an incoherent collection rather than a complete domain toolkit.

Resources