Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Lacounty

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description adds crucial behavior: returns a verdict enum, uses verbatim evidence with pipeworx:// citations, distinguishes 'could_not_verify' (check did not happen, not evidence) from 'unsupported' (no source found), and explains the two pipeline paths. This gives the agent important runtime expectations and error-handling context.

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 tightly packed with essential information. It is front-loaded with user-phrasing examples, then covers usage, methodology, return semantics, and caveats. Every sentence serves a purpose, and the structure is logical and scannable, appropriate for 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 carries the full burden of explaining return values and error handling. It does this thoroughly: lists verdict values, explains 'could_not_verify' and 'unsupported' meanings, mentions citations and reasoning, and even describes the internal routing. Given the tool's complexity, the description is complete and actionable.

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%, so the baseline is 3. Both parameters are already fully described in the schema (claim format, tolerance_pct range and default). The tool description does not add additional parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it neither compensates nor detracts.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It provides natural-language example phrasings ('Is it true that…', 'fact check') and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on fact-checking with a special structured path for company-financial claims and a grounded pipeline for everything else.

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 gives explicit usage context: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also clarifies the two distinct pathways (SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded pipeline). However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or mention when *not* to use it, so it lacks the full exclusion/alternative structure for 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 Lacounty 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all handle natural-language data queries, with ask_pipeworx_beta currently identical to ask_pipeworx. discover_tools and suggest_questions both exist to help agents find tools, and the five Polymarket tools have subtle, hard-to-distinguish boundaries. Agents will frequently select the wrong tool without careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are mostly lowercase snake_case with verb-noun structure (query_layer, search_datasets, resolve_entity), which is consistent and readable. However, some names break the pattern (entity_profile, layer_info, recent_changes, pipeworx_feedback) and the prefixes are not uniform. Still, the convention is predictable enough to navigate.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is a heavy count, and the vast majority are unrelated to the server's stated 'Arcgis Lacounty' purpose. Only three tools (search_datasets, query_layer, layer_info) serve the named GIS domain, while the rest form a sprawling collection of data-lookup, prediction-market, and utility tools. This is a severe scope mismatch.

Completeness1/5

The tool surface is severely incomplete for an ArcGIS LA County server: no layer listing beyond keyword search, no metadata endpoints, no editing, no spatial operations. The broader tool set lacks a coherent domain, making coverage impossible to assess beyond noting the glaring absence of core GIS functionality.

Resources