Skip to main content
Glama

Url

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. First observed

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, etc.), the description discloses nuanced behaviors: the exact verdict set, the meaning of each verdict—especially the crucial distinction that "could_not_verify" means the check did not happen and must not be treated as evidence—and the routing logic. This adds substantial context that annotations alone do not provide.

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 earns its place: it opens with natural-language trigger phrases, states the primary use case, explains the two routing paths, outlines the return structure, and provides a critical caveat. It is front-loaded with intent and structured with clear punctuation (semicolons, lists), making it easy to parse despite its length.

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 the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it enumerates all possible verdicts, clarifies the meaning of ambiguous outcomes, states the return payload (value with citation and reasoning), and explains the tool's efficiency advantage. There are no significant gaps in the information an agent needs to use it correctly.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds significant meaning to the tolerance_pct parameter: it explains how it overrides the wording-implied tolerance, gives concrete use guidance (set 1–2 for hallucination detection), and states the default (implied by wording, capped at 5). This enriches the schema and helps callers select appropriate values.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: "natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources." It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling Q&A tools by explaining it checks whether a user's statement is factually correct, and even notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making its scope 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?

The description explicitly states when to use: "Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct." It also differentiates the two execution pathways (SEC EDGAR for company financials, grounded pipeline for anything else) and provides critical caller guidance about "could_not_verify" versus "unsupported," which is essential for correct usage.

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

All Url 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct, well-scoped purposes, but several question-answering/research tools sit close together: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim can all be selected for factual questions. The descriptions are detailed enough to reduce ambiguity, but ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, and discovery helpers like discover_tools, suggest_questions, and pipeworx_trending also overlap somewhat.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are uniformly snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern such as build_url, list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, and validate_claim. The polymarket_* and pipeworx_* prefixes form a readable convention, though a few names like pipeworx_feedback and polymarket_arbitrage are noun-phrases rather than verb-first actions.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well past the 25+ threshold where even a broad platform starts to feel bloated. The set mixes data research, prediction-market tooling, URL utilities, memory, subscriptions, feedback, and npm scanning, which would be more coherently split across focused servers.

Completeness3/5

The core research workflows are thoroughly covered: routing, grounded answers, deep research, entity resolution, comparisons, claim validation, discovery, alerts, and memory all exist. However, the URL utility and dependency-scanning side domains feel tacked on and incomplete, and there is no dedicated tool to fetch an arbitrary pipeworx:// citation record even though such URIs are returned throughout.

Resources