Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Kansas

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?

The description adds substantial behavioral nuance beyond the annotations: it explains verdict types, error semantics, and the critical distinction between could_not_verify (check failed, not evidence) and unsupported (no source found). It also warns callers not to treat could_not_verify as evidence for/against, which is essential for correct agent behavior.

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 dense but well-structured: it front-loads trigger phrases, then covers usage, routing, return values, and a critical caller note. Every sentence earns its place, and the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 thoroughly covers return values, verdict types, source citation format, error conditions, and the two failure modes. It also explains the tool's efficiency benefit. The agent has all necessary context to invoke and interpret results correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, with both parameters thoroughly described (e.g., tolerance_pct range and default). The tool description does not add significant extra parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so baseline 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 states the tool's function: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources' with explicit trigger phrases like 'fact check' and 'verify the claim that...' It distinguishes itself from sibling search/research tools by focusing on producing a verdict for user claims.

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?

It explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' providing a clear when-to-use. It also describes routing between financial and non-financial claims. However, it does not explicitly name sibling alternatives for when not to use, so it stops 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 Kansas 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded all route questions; polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker all deal with prediction market edges). The inclusion of memory tools (remember, recall, forget) alongside research tools further blurs boundaries.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use snake_case (ai_visibility_check), some use underscores with prefixes (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_arbitrage), and others are more generic (query_layer, layer_info). There is no consistent pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the set is overly large for a geospatial server; most tools are unrelated to ArcGIS Kansas (e.g., prediction market tools, general research tools). Only 3 tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) are pertinent, making the count excessive and unfocused.

Completeness1/5

The server claims to be an ArcGIS Kansas tool but provides only basic layer querying and dataset search. Missing essential GIS operations such as editing, spatial analysis, or advanced queries, making it severely incomplete for its stated purpose.

Resources