Skip to main content
Glama

Wiktionary

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, and idempotent hints, and the description adds significant behavioral context beyond that: the exact verdict vocabulary, the crucial caveat that could_not_verify means the check failed and must not be treated as evidence, and the distinction between could_not_verify and unsupported. It also mentions source routing and citations, which are not visible 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but every sentence earns its place: query examples, usage rule, routing logic, verdict breakdown, critical caveat, and the note that it replaces multiple calls. It uses clear labels ('IMPORTANT for callers') and a well-organized flow, maintaining readability despite its length.

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 value: verdict categories, the actual grounded/structured value with a pipeworx:// citation, and reasoning. It also covers the two error-like states (could_not_verify and unsupported) and their distinct meanings, making the tool's behavior complete for an agent to correctly interpret results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description enriches both parameters: it gives concrete examples for claim and explains the semantic meaning of tolerance_pct (percent deviation threshold, overrides wording-implicit tolerance, use 1–2 for hallucination detection, default capped at 5). This adds practical guidance beyond the bare schema definitions.

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 explicit natural-language query examples and a direct statement: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining a two-path routing (SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded pipeline) and explicitly mentions it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making the exact function and 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 Guidelines5/5

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

It states precisely when to use: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also gives clear routing rules for company-financial claims vs. any other factual claim, and clarifies what the different verdicts mean, providing strong usage context. Although it doesn't name alternative tools, the guidance is explicit and detailed.

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

All Wiktionary 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The toolset is overwhelmingly fragmented: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical entry points; polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and polymarket_fill_risk heavily overlap; and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence cover the same task. The five actual Wiktionary tools are distinct but are lost among dozens of unrelated research and prediction-market tools, making selection highly ambiguous.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case and several logical prefixes (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_, pipeworx_) create local patterns. However, the naming mixes noun-style commands (definition, etymology, pronunciations, summary) with verb-style commands (search, remember, forget, validate_claim), and no consistent verb_noun convention carries across the whole set.

Tool Count1/5

36 tools is already heavy, but the deeper problem is that only 5 tools actually belong to a Wiktionary server while 31 tools serve unrelated Pipeworx, Polymarket, memory, and marketing-audit functions. The count is wildly inappropriate for the declared server purpose.

Completeness2/5

The Wiktionary-relevant tools cover basic word lookup—search, summary, definition, etymology, pronunciations—but omit common dictionary operations like translations, usage examples, inflected forms, or random entries. The non-Wiktionary majority does not fill these gaps; it just makes the surface area incoherent and hard to reason about.

Resources