Skip to main content
Glama

wikiviews

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?

Beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations, the description adds critical behavioral context: could_not_verify means the check did not happen and must not be shown as evidence, unsupported means no source covers it, and the structured-vs-grounded pipeline behavior is disclosed. It also warns callers about the verification_error field, providing rare and valuable failure-mode transparency.

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 front-loaded with trigger phrases, and the 'IMPORTANT for callers' warning and pipeline explanation are essential for safe use. Some marketing/context phrasing like 'fast path' and 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls' could be trimmed, but overall every major section earns its place.

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 return values: the verdict list, the actual value with pipeworx:// citation, and reasoning. It also defines the ambiguous verdicts could_not_verify and unsupported, and covers the routing logic and tolerance behavior, making it complete enough for a complex fact-checking tool.

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 covers both parameters (claim and tolerance_pct) with 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces that claim is natural language and mentions 'exact percent-delta math' and the approximately_correct verdict, which relates to tolerance, but it does not add new parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides.

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 concrete natural-language triggers ('Is it true that…', 'fact check', 'verify the claim that…') and clearly states it performs 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' This makes the tool's purpose unmistakable and distinct from generic Q&A or research sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded or deep_research.

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 explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' which is a clear usage trigger. It also explains the routing between company-financial claims and other factual claims, and notes it replaces sequential calls, but it does not name sibling tools as alternatives or state explicit when-not-to-use conditions.

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

All wikiviews 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, from Wikipedia page views to AI visibility checks, entity resolution, and Polymarket betting. No two tools appear overlapping in functionality; descriptions further clarify each tool's unique role.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern with clear verb_noun structure (e.g., get_article_views, subscribe, resolve_entity). No mixing of conventions, and names are descriptive enough to infer purpose.

Tool Count2/5

With 33 tools, the server is overloaded for its name 'wikiviews', which suggests a focused Wikipedia views tool. The set includes unrelated functionality like Polymarket arbitrage, memory storage, and Pipeworx data queries, making the scope feel excessive.

Completeness2/5

For the core domain of Wikipedia views, only 3 tools exist (get_article_views, get_project_views, get_top_articles), missing basic operations like list_articles_per_day. The unrelated tools are extensive, but the server's stated purpose is poorly served.

Resources