Skip to main content
Glama

Victorian Complaint

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations, explaining the two execution paths (SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded pipeline), the meaning of each return verdict, and the critical distinction between 'could_not_verify' (check did not happen) and 'unsupported' (no coverage). It includes concrete warnings about not treating 'could_not_verify' as evidence, which is essential behavioral context not present in 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 dense but every sentence contributes context: examples, usage, execution paths, return values, edge-case warnings, and pipeline replacement. It is longer than minimal but justified by the tool's complexity; still, it could be slightly more streamlined without losing value.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers return values (verdicts, actual value with citation, reasoning) and error semantics. It also addresses edge cases and default behaviors, making it complete 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.

Parameters4/5

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

The schema already has 100% coverage with descriptions for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics for tolerance_pct, explaining how it overrides claim wording, caps at 5 by default, and suggesting values for hallucination detection. This enriches the parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 specific verbs like 'verify' and 'fact check' with clear examples of natural-language claims, and explicitly states the tool's function: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It distinguishes itself by describing the two verification paths and noting it replaces 4-6 sequential calls, which differentiates it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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 provides clear when-to-use context: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also implies alternatives by noting it replaces multi-step pipelines, but it does not explicitly state when not to use it or name specific alternative tools, so it falls 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 Victorian Complaint 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

Multiple tool clusters overlap heavily: three ask_pipeworx variants, five polymarket_* tools, and two AI-visibility tools (ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence) could easily be misselected. While descriptions are detailed, the boundaries between search/research/bet/compare tools are blurry enough to cause agent confusion.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case pattern, and most use a verb-first or noun-based descriptive style (ask_pipeworx, bet_research, entity_profile, validate_claim). Minor deviations like deep_research or process_v2 are absent here; the set is largely predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 32 tools, the server exceeds the 25-tool threshold for heaviness. Many tools are edge-case variants or meta-features (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, suggest_questions) that could be consolidated. The server's stated identity as 'Victorian Complaint' also clashes with this scale, making the count feel excessive for the apparent core purpose.

Completeness4/5

The tool set provides broad coverage for data research, entity resolution, comparison, memory, subscriptions, and prediction-market analysis. It supports query, research, discover, validate, and monitor workflows with few dead ends. Minor gaps like a generic 'get_entity' or direct data-writing tools exist, but they are not core to the implied domain.

Resources