Skip to main content
Glama

Wordnik

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations. It clearly explains the verdict set (confirmed, approximately_correct, etc.), the critical distinction between could_not_verify (tool failure, not evidence) and unsupported (no source), and the use of verbatim evidence with citations. It also reveals the internal fallback behavior between structured and grounded pipelines, which is valuable behavioral context.

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 well-structured but somewhat verbose, with a long list of trigger phrases and many details. However, every section contributes: the trigger list aids matching, the verdict explanation is critical, and the pipeline explanation is useful. It is not as tight as a two-sentence description, but not excessively padded.

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 lacking an output schema, the description comprehensively explains the output verdicts, the meaning of failure states, the evidence/citation format, and the two processing paths. For a tool of this complexity, the description covers the key behavioral and output aspects well enough for an agent to invoke and interpret results correctly.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters have descriptions, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds meaningful nuance by explaining that tolerance_pct overrides the implied tolerance from the claim and by recommending 1–2 for hallucination detection. This goes beyond the schema's basic description, so a 4 is warranted.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly states the tool verifies natural-language factual claims against authoritative sources, with specific scope (company-financial vs. other claims). It is a clear verb+resource definition, but it does not explicitly name or distinguish from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or search, so it stops short of full sibling differentiation.

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', providing a clear use case. It also explains the two routing paths (SEC EDGAR for financial claims, grounded pipeline otherwise). However, it does not mention when not to use the tool or point to alternative tools, so exclusions are missing.

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

All Wordnik 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially between Wordnik and Pipeworx domains. However, some overlap exists among data query tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs deep_research) and company lookups (entity_profile vs compare_entities), but descriptions are detailed enough to differentiate them in most cases.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use snake_case (ai_visibility_check), others use descriptive phrases (ask_pipeworx_grounded), and some are single words (remember, recall). There is no uniform verb_noun pattern, though groups like polymarket_* and scan_* provide some consistency within their subsets.

Tool Count2/5

With 42 tools, the server is overloaded. It combines two distinct services (Wordnik dictionary and Pipeworx data) into one set, making it feel like two servers merged. Many tools are niche (e.g., hyphenation, random_words), increasing count without clear benefit. A split would improve coherence.

Completeness4/5

The Wordnik coverage is thorough (definitions, examples, pronunciation, frequency, etc.), and Pipeworx covers a wide range of data sources with tools for basic lookups, comparisons, research, and subscriptions. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update/delete for Wordnik data), but overall the surface is comprehensive for the intended use.

Resources