Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Chapelhill

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare read-only, idempotent, open-world, and non-destructive. The description adds essential behavioral details: it explains each verdict outcome, clarifies that 'could_not_verify' means the check did not happen and must not be treated as evidence, and distinguishes 'unsupported'. It also discloses the fast-path for SEC/XBRL financial claims and fallback for all others, going well beyond annotations.

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 front-loaded with purpose and usage. It uses clear structure: examples, purpose, behavior, return values, caveats, and efficiency benefit. A few phrases like 'natural-language claim verification' are repeated, but every section adds value. It's appropriately verbose for a complex tool.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values — it does so by listing the verdict enum, the actual value with citation, and reasoning. It also covers edge cases (could_not_verify vs. unsupported) and gives an example claim. Combined with full parameter schema and rich annotations, the description is complete and self-sufficient.

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% for both parameters. The description references 'exact percent-delta math' but does not add new semantics beyond what the schema already provides for 'claim' and 'tolerance_pct'. Since the schema fully documents parameters, the baseline of 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 clearly identifies the tool's purpose as natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It provides explicit trigger phrases ('fact check', 'verify the claim that...') and specific behavior for company-financial vs. other claims. This distinguishes it from general research tools by focusing on verdicts with evidence.

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 states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' — clear usage context. It also implies alternatives by noting this replaces 4–6 sequential calls, but doesn't explicitly name sibling tools or mention when not to use it, so it's clear but not exhaustive.

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

All Arcgis Chapelhill 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently literally identical, and the polymarket_* family (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread, polymarket_edge_tracker) all orbit the same prediction-market opportunity space. The descriptions are detailed and do help, but the sheer number of near-synonymous entry points makes misselection likely.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools follow a consistent snake_case, verb-first pattern: ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, query_layer, resolve_entity, search_datasets, validate_claim. Minor deviations exist — the polymarket_* tools are noun-phrase style and a few names like entity_profile, layer_info, and ai_visibility_check are noun-led — but the overall style is uniform enough to be predictable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is already in the overstuffed range, but the bigger problem is that only 3 of them (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) relate to the server's stated ArcGIS/Chapel Hill identity. The other 31 tools appear to be an unrelated Pipeworx data-research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription bundle merged into this server, making the count grossly disproportionate to the apparent purpose.

Completeness2/5

The three GIS tools form a usable read-only search → schema → query workflow, so the ArcGIS domain is not completely absent. However, as a whole the server has no coherent domain to be complete for, and the ArcGIS side lacks broader capabilities like layer enumeration, spatial filters/statistics, or any write/edit operations. For a server named Arcgis Chapelhill, having 31 out-of-scope tools constitutes a major completeness failure.

Resources