Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Orovalley

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?

Despite annotations already indicating read-only, idempotent, and open-world behavior, the description adds crucial semantics: it explains the meaning of 'could_not_verify' (check did not happen, carries verification_error, must not be shown as evidence), the meaning of 'unsupported' (no source coverage), and the internal routing logic. It also notes that it 'replaces 4–6 sequential calls,' which helps the agent anticipate latency and behavior. No contradiction with 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 longer than average but every section earns its place: trigger phrases, usage context, dual-path behavior, output summary, and critical error semantics. It is front-loaded with the most important purpose and usage cues. A slight tightening could remove repetition (e.g., 'confirm or refute' and 'true or false' are similar), but it remains efficient and well-organized 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?

Given the tool's complexity (2 params, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what the tool does, when to use it, how it routes different claim types, what it returns (verdicts, actual value, citation, reasoning), and the critical distinction between could_not_verify and unsupported. An agent has enough context to select and invoke this tool correctly without needing additional documentation.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, providing baseline descriptions for both parameters. The tool description adds value beyond the schema by explaining tolerance_pct's override behavior, default ('implied by wording, capped at 5'), and use case ('set 1–2 for hallucination detection'). It also provides example claims that illustrate the claim parameter format. This is a meaningful addition over the schema.

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 trigger phrases ('Is it true that…', 'fact check', 'verify the claim that…') and states it performs 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on claim verification with a structured verdict and by describing the two routing paths (SEC EDGAR XBRL vs. grounded pipeline). This is a specific verb+resource+scope that leaves no doubt about what the tool does.

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' and gives example user phrasings. It also clarifies the sub-routing for company-financial claims vs. other factual claims. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or say when NOT to use this tool, so it's clear but lacks explicit exclusions.

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

All Arcgis Orovalley 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

The descriptions are extraordinarily detailed and genuinely differentiate most tools, but the set contains near-clones (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta which is explicitly 'identical' to it, and ask_pipeworx_grounded) plus five polymarket tools whose boundaries (arbitrage vs edges vs edge_tracker vs fill_risk vs kalshi_spread) overlap enough to cause misselection. An agent navigating this surface must read full descriptions to choose correctly, which defeats quick tool selection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity), but there are clear deviations: bare single-word verbs (remember, recall, forget, subscribe, unsubscribe), prefix-family names (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending; polymarket_edges, polymarket_fill_risk), and a disjoint ArcGIS trio (layer_info, query_layer, search_datasets) that breaks the dominant convention. It is readable but not predictable across the whole set.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is far beyond what the 'Arcgis Orovalley' purpose warrants — only 3 tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) actually relate to GIS, with 31 unrelated tools bolted on covering financial data, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and AI visibility. This is a sprawling mega-server where an agent must hold an enormous option set in mind; the surface appears to be several platforms fused together rather than one well-scoped toolset.

Completeness3/5

The genuine ArcGIS surface (search datasets → layer_info → query_layer) is a complete read-only workflow with no dead ends, and the Pipeworx side is impressively comprehensive (routing, grounded answers, research, entity, compare, resolve, validate, memory, subscriptions, feedback). But the tool set as a whole serves no single coherent domain — the declared purpose (ArcGIS Oro Valley data) lacks any write/editing operations, while the majority of the surface addresses unrelated concerns, so 'complete' only applies to one small slice of the 34 tools.

Resources