Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Loudoun

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations by explaining critical behavioral semantics: the difference between 'could_not_verify' (check did not happen, no evidentiary value) and 'unsupported' (no source found), the structured fast path for company financials, and the automatic fallback to a grounded pipeline. It also clarifies that 'could_not_verify' must not be presented as evidence, which is crucial for agent decision-making. This robust transparency greatly exceeds the safety hints already present in 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 fairly long but well-structured: trigger phrases, usage, processing paths, output details, error semantics, and efficiency note. Every sentence adds value, and the use of bullet-like lists (verdicts, error fields) improves readability. It could be slightly more compact, but the density is justified by the complexity of the 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?

With no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values, and it does so comprehensively: verdicts, actual value with citation, reasoning, and error structures. It also covers the dual-path behavior and parameter nuances. Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description is exceptionally complete.

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?

The input schema already describes both parameters, and the description adds extra meaning by giving a concrete example for 'claim' and elaborating on 'tolerance_pct' with usage guidance (e.g., 'set 1–2 for hallucination detection') and its default behavior. This elevates it above the baseline 3 for full schema coverage, though the additional info is moderate rather than exhaustive.

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 purpose as natural-language claim verification with specific trigger phrases ('fact check', 'verify the claim that…', 'confirm or refute'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on factual verification against authoritative sources and describing the output verdict types. The verb 'validate' plus resource 'claim' is 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 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,' which is clear when-to-use guidance. It also outlines two processing paths (company-financial vs any other claim) and notes it replaces multiple sequential calls, implying an efficiency advantage over alternatives. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or provide when-not-to-use scenarios, so it stops short of a perfect score.

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

All Arcgis Loudoun 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap among data query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and numerous Polymarket bet tools, which could cause confusion. Tool descriptions are detailed and help differentiate, but the diversity of domains requires careful reading.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow inconsistent patterns: some are snake_case verb_noun (query_layer, search_datasets), others are noun_verb (bet_research) or compound names (pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage). There is no uniform convention, making it harder for agents to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

With 33 tools, the server feels overloaded for its apparent ArcGIS focus. Most tools are unrelated to ArcGIS (Polymarket, Pipeworx data, memory, subscriptions), suggesting a lack of scope. The count is high without a clear unifying purpose.

Completeness2/5

The tool surface is incomplete for any single domain. ArcGIS coverage is minimal (only query and schema), Pipeworx data tools are abundant but without a clear workflow, and Polymarket betting lacks order placement. The server tries to cover too many areas resulting in shallow coverage.

Resources