Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Branson

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond annotations by explaining return verdict possibilities, the critical distinction between 'could_not_verify' (did not happen) and 'unsupported' (no source exists), and the error structure. It also clarifies the grounded vs structured pipeline and citation behavior, adding valuable operational 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 long but well-structured, opening with trigger phrases and then flowing through usage, routing, return values, and caveats. Every sentence adds necessary information for a complex tool, though a trim of some informal phrasing could make it slightly tighter.

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?

The description is comprehensive: it explains what the tool does, when to use it, the routing logic, the full return structure (verdict types, value, citation, reasoning), and how to interpret error cases. With no output schema, this rich description fully compensates for missing structured return docs.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful detail beyond the schema: examples for the 'claim' parameter and a thorough explanation of 'tolerance_pct' override behavior including default cap and hallucination-detection use case. This extra context justifies a 4.

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 clearly identifies the tool as a natural-language claim verification tool with specific verb 'verify' and resource 'authoritative sources'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it replaces 4–6 sequential calls and by enumerating the exact claim categories it handles, making it unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and details the routing logic for company-financial vs other claims. It also clarifies the consolidated nature ('Replaces 4–6 sequential calls'), giving clear context on when to prefer this tool over alternative sequences.

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

All Arcgis Branson 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

All 33 tools have clearly distinct purposes, even those that seem related like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research are well-differentiated by use case and behavior. Memory tools (remember/recall/forget) and subscription tools (subscribe/unsubscribe/list_subscriptions/recent_alerts) are similarly distinct.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools use snake_case, but naming patterns are mixed: some are single verbs (forget, recall), some verb_noun (query_layer, search_datasets), some noun_noun (entity_profile, layer_info), and some longer phrases (polymarket_kalshi_spread, scan_competitor_ai_presence). While readable, the inconsistency makes the set feel less coherent.

Tool Count2/5

With 33 tools, the surface is overly broad for a server named after a specific ArcGIS dataset. Many tools are unrelated to the core purpose (e.g., polymarket tools, npm scanning, AI visibility), making the count feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

For the stated ArcGIS Branson focus, only 3 tools (search_datasets, query_layer, layer_info) are relevant, offering only read access. The rest are a miscellaneous collection from the Pipeworx ecosystem and other domains, leaving obvious gaps in GIS functionality and no write or analysis capabilities.

Resources