Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Charlotte

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable nuance beyond annotations, especially distinguishing 'could_not_verify' (check did not happen) from 'unsupported' (no source exists), and disclosing that the tool returns a verdict, actual value with citation, and reasoning. It also explains the replacement of 4–6 sequential calls, giving a clear behavioral contract.

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 serves a purpose: trigger phrases, usage context, path routing, return values, and error semantics. It is front-loaded with the essential purpose and structured into clear segments (usage, paths, output, caveats). No filler or redundancy.

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 fully explains return values (verdict types, actual value, reasoning) and error cases (could_not_verify vs unsupported). It also covers both execution paths and the tolerance override feature. Given the tool's complexity, the description is complete enough for correct invocation and interpretation.

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 descriptions cover both parameters at 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning, particularly for tolerance_pct: it explains how it overrides implied tolerance and provides guidance for hallucination detection ('set 1–2 for hallucination detection'). This goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 states the tool verifies natural-language factual claims against authoritative sources, with explicit trigger phrases. It distinguishes between company-financial claims using SEC EDGAR and other claims using a grounded pipeline, and differentiates itself from sibling tools by focusing on fact-checking (e.g., 'fact check', 'verify the claim').

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' and explains when the structured vs grounded paths apply. It also clarifies that 'could_not_verify' means the check failed and should not be shown as evidence. However, it does not explicitly mention when NOT to use the tool or name alternative sibling tools such as deep_research.

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

All Arcgis Charlotte 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 are easy to confuse: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, deep_research overlaps heavily with ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded, and the six polymarket_* tools have closely related purposes. ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence also overlap, making selection error-prone.

Naming Consistency4/5

Almost all tools use lowercase snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (query_layer, resolve_entity, scan_dependency, validate_claim). A few noun-style names like entity_profile, layer_info, and pipeworx_trending deviate slightly, but the overall convention is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well past the heavy threshold, and the server is named 'Arcgis Charlotte' while only three tools actually relate to ArcGIS. The rest form a sprawling Pipeworx research, prediction-market, subscription, and memory toolkit, which creates a severe scope mismatch.

Completeness2/5

For the Pipeworx data side the surface is quite thorough, but for the declared ArcGIS Charlotte purpose it is thin: search_datasets, layer_info, and query_layer provide read-only access with no update/delete, analysis, or dataset management. The tool set therefore has a significant gap relative to its stated domain.

Resources