Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Montana

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?

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses key behavioral nuances: the distinction between 'could_not_verify' (check did not happen) and 'unsupported' (no source exists), and the warning not to treat 'could_not_verify' as evidence. It also explains the two pipeline behaviors and the return format, which significantly aids correct use.

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 detailed but every sentence earns its place: query phrasings, use case, routing logic, return values, failure semantics, and efficiency note. It is front-loaded with the purpose and uses clear structural cues (e.g., 'IMPORTANT for callers'), making it easy to scan.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description enumerates all possible verdicts ('confirmed / approximately_correct / refuted / inconclusive / unsupported / could_not_verify'), explains the meaning of the ambiguous ones, and describes the citation and reasoning returned. It covers both fast-path and grounded flows, making the tool fully self-contained for an agent.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds valuable semantics: it explains how tolerance_pct overrides claim-implied tolerance, caps at 5, and recommends 1–2 for hallucination detection. It also embeds concrete examples for the claim parameter, going beyond the schema's basic documentation.

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 opens with explicit natural-language query phrasings and a clear verb+resource pairing: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It distinguishes itself from siblings by detailing the two routing paths (SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded pipeline) and its efficiency ('Replaces 4–6 sequential calls').

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 provides a clear use case: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also distinguishes between company-financial claims and any other factual claim. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use the tool, 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 Montana 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several clusters of similar tools exist: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (identical right now), and ask_pipeworx_grounded are easily confused, and the many polymarket_* tools overlap heavily. However, the extremely detailed descriptions usually clarify the specific intent, so an agent can often pick correctly.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are uniformly snake_case and mostly follow verb_noun or a recognizable prefix pattern (ask_, polymarket_, pipeworx_). There are a few noun-phrase exceptions like layer_info and entity_profile, but the style is consistent enough that naming is not a major source of confusion.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy for any server, and especially for one named 'Arcgis Montana' where only three tools (search_datasets, query_layer, layer_info) relate to GIS. Most of the surface is a general-purpose data/analytics API, making the count feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

Relative to the implied ArcGIS Montana purpose, the surface is severely incomplete: it only supports searching and querying datasets, with no create/update/delete or administrative capabilities. The Pipeworx functionality is broad, but the GIS side is a thin slice, leaving obvious gaps for geospatial workflows.

Resources