Skip to main content
Glama

What3words

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the two routing paths (SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded pipeline) and the exact semantics of could_not_verify, including the verification_error field and that it must not be treated as evidence. It also defines unsupported, adding meaningful behavioral context without contradicting 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 longer than average but each sentence delivers operational value—examples, routing, return values, and error interpretation. It is front-loaded with natural-language triggers and ends with the efficiency rationale, though some redundancy exists around 'grounded pipeline' and 'structured actual 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?

With no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the verdict enum, the pipeworx:// citation, and the reasoning component. It also clarifies critical edge cases (could_not_verify vs. unsupported) and routing behavior, making the tool self-sufficient for a 2-parameter, no-output-schema configuration.

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 coverage is 100%, and the tolerance_pct parameter already includes detailed semantics such as valid range, override behavior, and default cap. The main description adds minimal parameter-level detail (only 'exact percent-delta math' in the financial path), so the baseline 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 opens with natural-language phrasings ('fact check', 'verify the claim that…') and clearly identifies the tool as claim verification against authoritative sources. It explicitly differentiates the SEC EDGAR/XBRL financial path from the general grounded pipeline, distinguishing it from sibling research 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?

It states an explicit trigger: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also provides important guidance on interpreting could_not_verify versus unsupported. However, it does not name sibling alternatives or specify when not to use it, 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 What3words 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There is significant overlap among the meta-query tools: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions, and validate_claim all route to the same underlying data catalog with only subtle differences in grounding or scope. Company-focused tools like entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, and resolve_entity also share fuzzy boundaries. The four what3words tools are clearly distinct, but they sit awkwardly beside a much larger, partially redundant Pipeworx/prediction-market cluster.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use snake_case, which provides a base level of consistency, but the naming patterns vary widely: some are verb_noun (list_languages, recall, forget), some are X_to_Y (coords_to_words, words_to_coords), some are brand-prefixed (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), and some are bare concepts (deep_research, entity_profile, autosuggest). The ask_pipeworx family is internally consistent, as are the polymarket_* tools, but the overall set lacks a single predictable convention.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold, and the server is named What3words when only 4 of the 35 tools actually belong to that geocoding domain. Even interpreted as a general data platform, 35 tools with a heavily overlapping meta-tool layer feels bloated rather than well-scoped. The what3words-specific surface would be appropriately sized at 4-5 tools on its own.

Completeness3/5

For what3words specifically, the surface is complete: coords_to_words, words_to_coords, autosuggest, and list_languages cover the core bidirectional conversion plus discovery. However, for the broader domain the server actually serves, there are notable gaps such as no direct resolve-by-pipeworx://-URI tool and no open-web search, despite citations and external data being advertised as fetchable. The mix of geocoding, data lookup, prediction markets, memory, and subscriptions makes it unclear what complete coverage would even mean.

Resources