Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Abbotsford

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, but the description goes well beyond them. It explains the two distinct verification routes (structured XBRL math vs. grounded pipeline), defines the special meaning of 'could_not_verify' (pipeline failure, NOT evidence), contrasts it with 'unsupported', and warns callers not to present it as a verdict. It also reveals the citation/reasoning return shape. This is rich behavioral context beyond the 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. It starts with the most recognizable trigger phrases, then states the core purpose, then dives into pipeline specifics, then gives a critical caller warning, and ends with an efficiency claim. The structure is logical and front-loaded with the most actionable info. No fluff or redundant restating of the tool name.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (2 parameters, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers all main behaviors: the two verification paths, the verdict vocabulary, the meaning of each inconclusive status, the citation output, and the integration efficiency benefit. It even handles edge-case semantics (could_not_verify vs. unsupported) that a caller must know to use results correctly. There are no obvious gaps.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%: both 'claim' and 'tolerance_pct' have thorough descriptions in the input schema, including examples and default behavior. The tool description itself does not add parameter-level details beyond what the schema provides. Per the rubric, with full schema coverage, a baseline of 3 is appropriate; the description doesn't need to compensate for missing schema info.

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 natural-language trigger phrases and clearly states the tool's function: verifying factual claims against authoritative sources. It specifies a concrete verb ('verify'), a resource ('factual claim'), and distinguishes itself from siblings by calling out the two-tier pipeline (SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded fallback) and the fact that it replaces 4–6 sequential calls. This is far more specific than a generic 'verifies claims' statement.

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 gives a clear when-to-use signal. It also differentiates between company-financial claims and all other factual claims, mapping each to the appropriate internal path. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when NOT to use this tool (e.g., for open-ended research), so it falls short of a 5.

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

All Arcgis Abbotsford 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and discover_tools all provide data lookup/research. The PolyMarket family (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also creates boundary confusion despite varied signals.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case, but the naming pattern is mixed: some are imperative verb phrases (query_layer, validate_claim), while others are noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts, layer_info). Descriptions are readable overall, but there is no consistent verb_noun convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is high and the vast majority are unrelated to the server's stated ArcGIS Abbotsford purpose. The set appears to be a generic Pipeworx data/prediction-market toolkit with only a few GIS-specific tools, making the count excessive for the declared scope.

Completeness2/5

For the ArcGIS Abbotsford domain, the surface is severely incomplete: only search_datasets, query_layer, and layer_info cover GIS functionality, lacking update/delete/create operations or broader dataset management. For the actual Pipeworx domain, coverage is decent, but that does not match the server name.

Resources