Skip to main content
Glama

Wikiquote

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?

Goes well beyond the annotations: it discloses the routing logic, the return format (verdict types, citation, reasoning), and critically distinguishes 'could_not_verify' (internal failure, not evidence) from 'unsupported' (no source). Adds context about the verification_error structure and warns callers how to interpret results, which is vital for safe usage.

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 densely packed with valuable information. It uses a clear structure: examples, purpose, routing logic, return values, and important caveats. While the opening list of paraphrases could be condensed, every subsequent sentence contributes unique meaning, making the length acceptable for a complex tool.

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 fully explains the return value (verdict enum, evidence, citation, reasoning), the failure semantics, and the routing. It also covers the tool's efficiency benefit. Given the tool's complexity, this description is exceptionally complete and leaves little ambiguity.

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 already provides 100% coverage for both parameters, including a detailed explanation of tolerance_pct. The description itself doesn't add parameter-specific details except implicitly through the pipeline description. Since schema does the heavy lifting, a baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 gives a specific verb+resource: verifies natural-language claims against authoritative sources. It lists example phrasings and returns a verdict, clearly distinguishing it from generic search or ask tools. It also explains the composite nature (replaces 4–6 sequential calls), which clarifies its role among siblings.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also distinguishes between company-financial claims (SEC EDGAR path) and other claims (grounded pipeline). However, it does not name specific alternative tools to avoid, relying on context, so it misses some explicit exclusion guidance.

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

All Wikiquote 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

B3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set mixes four Wikiquote tools with 31 unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket tools, creating a confusing dual identity. Within the research tooling, ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-synonyms, and polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk overlap heavily, making selection ambiguous.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case, but patterns vary: some are verb-first (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity), some noun-first (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage, quote_of_the_day), and several are bare verbs or nouns (search, summary, remember, quotes). Prefix groups like ask_pipeworx* and polymarket_* are consistent, but the overall convention is mixed.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a server named Wikiquote, as only 4 tools (quote_of_the_day, quotes, search, summary) actually serve that domain. The remaining 31 form an unrelated general research and prediction-market toolkit, making the set feel bloated and off-scope for its stated name.

Completeness1/5

As a Wikiquote server, the surface is severely incomplete: there is no random quote, page listing, author/topic browsing, or any write/update operations, and the few quotation tools are buried among unrelated functionality. The unrelated research tools may be internally rich, but they do not address the server's stated purpose.

Resources