Skip to main content
Glama

universities

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations mark this as read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description goes further by explaining the verdict vocabulary and the crucial distinction that could_not_verify means the check didn't happen (with verification_error) and must not be treated as evidence, while unsupported means no source covers it. This is essential behavioral context 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but well-organized with a trigger list, purpose, routing explanation, return details, and a critical caveat. Each sentence provides value, though the list of example phrases is somewhat redundant and the text could be tightened.

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 enumerates all possible verdict values, specifies that it returns the grounded/structured value with a pipeworx:// citation and reasoning, and explains error semantics (could_not_verify vs unsupported). This gives an agent everything needed to interpret results, and the two routing paths cover the tool's full behavior.

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 full descriptions for both params (claim and tolerance_pct) with examples and defaults, so schema coverage is 100%. The description itself does not add parameter-level detail, meeting the baseline of 3

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 natural-language trigger phrases and clearly states 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It then specifies two routing paths (SEC EDGAR/XBRL for financials, grounded pipeline for other claims) and notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, fully distinguishing it from sibling research/query tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and explains when the structured financial path is used vs the grounded pipeline. However, it does not name alternative tools to use for non-claim queries, so it lacks explicit when-not guidance and alternative tool references.

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

All universities 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical routers, and the five polymarket_* tools all deal with prediction-market edge detection and filling risk. Memory and subscription tools are clear, but the data-access and research tools require careful reading to avoid selecting the wrong entry point.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case and many follow a verb_noun pattern such as search_universities and resolve_entity, but the set mixes product-prefixed names (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), and noun phrases (entity_profile, deep_research). The ask_pipeworx_beta suffix also introduces a naming convention not used elsewhere.

Tool Count2/5

At 32 tools, the server exceeds the heavy threshold, and almost all tools are unrelated to the apparent 'universities' domain—only search_universities matches the server name. The count might suit a broad data-research platform, but it is poorly scoped for this server's stated identity.

Completeness1/5

For the domain implied by the server name, the surface is severely incomplete: only a name/country university search exists, with no university detail, ranking, program, admissions, or comparison coverage. Agents would dead-end immediately after finding a list of universities.

Resources