Skip to main content
Glama

Virustotal

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 already indicate read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior. The description adds critical behavioral context: the distinction between could_not_verify (check did not happen) and unsupported (no source found), including the verification_error field, and explicitly warns that could_not_verify must not be treated as evidence. It also names the two processing pipelines and the return payload structure.

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 longer than average but information-dense. It front-loads trigger phrases and purpose, then transitions to routing, return values, and critical caller warnings. Every sentence contributes meaningful guidance for a complex tool; slight verbosity prevents a 5.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the return values: verdict enum, actual value with pipeworx:// citation, and reasoning. It also covers error semantics and edge cases (could_not_verify, unsupported) and the two data paths. This is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, with detailed descriptions and examples for both claim and tolerance_pct. The tool description adds minimal parameter-specific meaning (e.g., 'exact percent-delta math' ties to tolerance), but the schema already carries the burden, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 clearly defines the tool as natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with explicit trigger phrases and a specific verb+resource ('validate claim'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by covering both company-financial claims and any other factual claim, 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 Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' providing clear when-to-use context. It also describes the automatic routing for different claim types and notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, but it does not name alternative sibling tools for situations where this tool is not appropriate.

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

All Virustotal 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

The set mixes several overlapping families: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are described as currently identical, while ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, bet_research, and validate_claim all route to the same underlying data sources. Polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, spread) also blur together; only the four lookup_* VirusTotal functions are cleanly distinct.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are uniformly snake_case with a few consistent families (lookup_domain/file/ip/url, ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), which helps. However, the set mixes imperative verbs (remember, forget, subscribe, validate_claim), noun phrases (entity_profile, deep_research, recent_alerts), and inconsistent prefixes, so no single naming convention holds across the server.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is too many for the apparent purpose, especially for a server named Virustotal. The bulk of the tools address unrelated Pipeworx research, memory, and prediction-market functions, so the count does not reflect the server's advertised domain.

Completeness1/5

For a VirusTotal server, only four lookup tools exist and there is no way to submit a URL/file, create a scan, retrieve analysis details, or explore relationships—core VirusTotal operations are missing. Scoped broadly, the unrelated Pipeworx tools are extensive, but they do not fill the gaps in the advertised domain. The surface is severely incomplete relative to the server name.

Resources