Skip to main content
Glama

airquality

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?

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining the two execution pipelines, the exact verdict values, the meaning of could_not_verify vs. unsupported, the presence of verification_error{stage,detail}, the pipeworx:// citation, and the performance benefit of replacing 4–6 calls. It also emphasizes that could_not_verify must not be treated as evidence, which is critical for callers.

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 longer than average but well-organized: examples first, then routing, then return format, then critical caller warnings. Every sentence adds value, though some redundancy exists with the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 carries the full burden of explaining return values, which it does: verdicts, actual value with citation, reasoning, and error semantics. It also covers the two sub-paths and the open-world behavior, making the tool's behavior fully specified.

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 offers 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for claim and tolerance_pct, including the default cap and hallucination-detection guidance. The tool description adds only marginal context (e.g., exact percent-delta math) but does not materially expand parameter semantics beyond schema, so baseline 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 explicitly frames the tool as natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with concrete query phrasings and a defined verdict set. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling Q&A tools by focusing on truth/falsity of claims.

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 states when to use it ('whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct') and describes the dual routing for financial vs. other claims. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use it, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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

All airquality 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially multiple ask_pipeworx variants and numerous Polymarket tools. Detailed descriptions help, but an agent could still confuse similar tools like ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names use a mix of styles: some are descriptive (get_air_quality), some use proprietary prefixes (pipeworx_feedback), and others are arbitrary (bet_research). No consistent verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count1/5

33 tools is excessive for a server named 'airquality', which only has 2 air-quality-specific tools. The count is appropriate for a general data platform, but mismatched with the server name.

Completeness1/5

For the air quality domain, the tool set is severely incomplete, missing historical data, pollution sources, and health recommendations. The overall set covers many other domains, but fails to address the server's apparent focus.

Resources