Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Albuquerque

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.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive), the description adds crucial behavioral details: the exact meaning of 'could_not_verify' (check did not happen, includes verification_error, must not be shown as evidence), the meaning of 'unsupported' (no source covers it), and the automatic routing between SEC EDGAR and the grounded pipeline. It also discloses the return structure with verdict, value, citation, and reasoning.

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 information-dense and well-organized: examples first, then core purpose, routing logic, output specification, and important caveats. Though slightly long, every sentence contributes value—especially the critical clarifications about could_not_verify and unsupported. No wasted words, but the example list in the first sentence could be trimmed for slightly better front-loading.

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 there is no output schema, the description fully describes the return values and error semantics. It covers the two processing paths, the verdict categories, the citation and reasoning elements, and the key distinction between 'could_not_verify' and 'unsupported'. For a tool of this complexity, the description is complete and self-contained.

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% and both parameters already have clear descriptions. The description adds only marginal extra meaning, such as 'exact percent-delta math' for tolerance handling, but it does not substantially go beyond what the schema states about claim and tolerance_pct. A baseline of 3 is appropriate given high schema coverage.

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 starts with a clear verb+resource: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It provides example query phrasings, specifies the SEC EDGAR path for company-financial claims and a grounded pipeline for other claims, and lists the exact verdict types returned. This unambiguously distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It further differentiates usage based on claim type (company-financial vs. other) and explains what 'could_not_verify' and 'unsupported' mean to guide interpretation. It also notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, giving a clear efficiency-oriented reason to choose this tool.

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

All Arcgis Albuquerque 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 tool clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are documented as functionally identical right now, and polymarket_arbitrage / polymarket_edges / polymarket_edge_tracker all surface trade opportunities with similar outputs. discover_tools and suggest_questions also cover similar 'what can I do' territory.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and many use verb_noun (query_layer, resolve_entity, generate_llms_txt), but a large minority use noun/adjective phrases (layer_info, recent_changes, polymarket_edges, bet_research) or bare verbs (remember, forget, recall). The pattern is readable but not fully predictable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is over the 25-tool threshold and deeply mismatched with the server name: only 3 of them (search_datasets, query_layer, layer_info) relate to ArcGIS Albuquerque. Most of the surface is a general-purpose Pipeworx data platform, making the set bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

The advertised ArcGIS domain has only search-schema-query coverage: there is no way to list all datasets, apply spatial filters, or get service-level metadata. The Pipeworx half is feature-rich, but for the server as titled the tool surface has significant gaps and a large amount of irrelevant functionality.

Resources