Skip to main content
Glama

Wynncraft

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, openWorldHint, and non-destructive, but the description adds crucial behavioral nuance far beyond those. It defines the could_not_verify verdict as indicating the check did not happen, attaches verification_error{stage,detail}, and warns it 'must not be shown as one' (i.e., not as evidence). It also clarifies unsupported as 'we looked and cover no source for it,' and explains the two internal pipelines (SEC EDGAR+XBRL fast path vs grounded pipeline).

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?

Although the description is long, every sentence contributes: query patterns, use-case trigger, routing logic, return contract, edge-case warnings, and the replacement note. It is front-loaded with purpose and structured coherently, making the length justified for the tool's complexity.

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 only 2 parameters and no output schema, the description nevertheless fully specifies the verdict enum (confirmed / approximately_correct / refuted / inconclusive / unsupported / could_not_verify), the actual value with pipeworx:// citation, reasoning, and the special meanings of could_not_verify and unsupported. The routing behavior and error handling are also thoroughly described, leaving no obvious gaps.

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?

Input schema already covers both parameters (claim, tolerance_pct) with descriptions, but the description adds substantial meaning. It explains tolerance_pct 'Overrides the tolerance implied by the claim wording,' specifies the 0.5–50 range, and gives use-case guidance for hallucination detection (set 1–2 to refute any material error). It also clarifies the default (implied by wording, capped at 5) and provides real examples for claim.

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 query patterns ('Is it true that…', 'fact check', 'verify the claim that…') and defines the tool as 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it replaces 4–6 sequential calls (NL parsing → entity resolution → data lookup → comparison) and by describing the two routing paths (SEC EDGAR+XBRL vs grounded pipeline).

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 explicitly states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' providing a clear trigger condition and even differentiating between financial and non-financial claims. However, it does not mention any exclusions or alternative tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx_grounded or deep_research), so it falls short of fully explicit when-not/alternatives guidance.

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

All Wynncraft 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
Disambiguation2/5

The set is split between Wynncraft game data tools and a large Pipeworx data cluster, and within the Pipeworx cluster there is heavy overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical (the beta is currently identical), ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence do essentially the same thing at different granularities, and six polymarket_* tools cover overlapping prediction-market functionality. An agent would frequently struggle to choose the right tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Snake_case with a mostly verb_noun pattern dominates (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim), and families like polymarket_* and pipeworx_* are internally consistent. However, there is a notable mix of noun-only tools (guild, item_database, leaderboard, player, news) and the server is named Wynncraft while the majority of tools are Pipeworx-branded, which breaks overall coherence.

Tool Count2/5

40 tools is well beyond the borderline range, and the count is inflated by redundancy: multiple ask_pipeworx variants, several overlapping polymarket tools, a memory trio, and subscription management that arguably belong to a separate server. The Wynncraft portion alone would be nicely scoped (~9 tools), but the merged surface feels heavy and unfocused.

Completeness4/5

The Wynncraft side offers solid read coverage of players, guilds, items, leaderboards, news, and online status, which is appropriate for the domain. The Pipeworx side covers lookup, grounded verification, comparison, research, prediction markets, subscriptions, memory, and feedback, leaving few obvious dead ends for the stated meta-purposes.

Resources