Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Longview

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes far beyond annotations by explaining the tool's two-path behavior (SEC EDGAR vs grounded pipeline), the exact meaning of each verdict, and the error semantics of 'could_not_verify'. The description also clarifies that 'unsupported' indicates lack of coverage. These behavioral details are not present in the annotations and are crucial for correct interpretation.

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 verbose but justified given the tool's complexity. It is front-loaded with trigger phrases, then covers routing, return values, and error semantics. While slightly long, each sentence contributes value; the 'IMPORTANT for callers' section is a deliberate and useful structural addition.

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?

Provides a complete operational picture: input examples, output verdicts and reasoning, source routing, error handling, and caveats. Even without an output schema, the description fully informs the agent about what to expect and how to interpret results, making it sufficient for correct invocation and response handling.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema: it explains that tolerance_pct overrides the implied tolerance, that 1–2 is suitable for hallucination detection, and that the default is capped at 5. This supplements the schema descriptions, which only list basic usage, thereby enriching the agent's understanding of parameter behavior.

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 specific trigger phrases and examples. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by mentioning its role as a single-call replacement for 4–6 sequential steps, making its purpose specific and 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 instructs when to use: whenever checking whether a user's statement is factually correct. Differentiates between company-financial claims (fast path) and other claims (grounded pipeline), giving clear routing context. Also notes that 'could_not_verify' is not a verdict, providing important caller guidance.

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

All Arcgis Longview 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Descriptions are unusually explicit about when to use each tool (single lookup vs grounded vs deep research), but the set still contains several genuinely overlapping tools: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx, scan_competitor_ai_presence wraps ai_visibility, and six polymarket_* tools share the same 'edge/arbitrage' conceptual space. An agent can usually pick the right tool but faces real ambiguity in several clusters.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are uniformly snake_case and readable, and there are coherent prefix families (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*). However the verb placement is inconsistent: verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim, discover_tools) coexists with noun-first names (recent_changes, entity_compare, layer_info, polymarket_edges), and bet_research sits outside the polymarket_* family despite being a prediction-market tool.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well past the 'feels heavy' threshold, and more importantly the set mixes what looks like three different servers: a tiny ArcGIS/Longview GIS slice (layer_info, query_layer, search_datasets), a massive general-purpose data-research platform from Pipeworx, and a Polymarket prediction-market toolkit. Most tools earn their place for the platform, but far too few belong to the named domain.

Completeness4/5

The research surface is remarkably complete: a router, grounded and beta variants, deep multi-source research, claim verification, entity/profile/change resolution, discovery and suggestion helpers, memory (remember/recall/forget), subscriptions (subscribe/unsubscribe/recent_alerts), and feedback — no obvious lifecycle dead ends. Minute gaps exist on the GIS side (no dataset editing, no metadata browsing, no named export/view ops) and a few nooks like screen- leisure tools have no progress/status endpoints, but these are workaroundable.

Resources