Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Palmbeach

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 annotations by detailing the SEC EDGAR + XBRL fast path vs. grounded pipeline, defining verdicts, and explaining the critical meaning of could_not_verify and unsupported. It also warns that could_not_verify must not be shown as evidence, which is essential caller guidance.

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 long but well-organized and front-loaded with the purpose and use case. Each section (trigger phrases, path detail, verdict list, warnings) adds necessary information, though some trimming could make it more concise.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers return values (verdicts, actual value, citation, reasoning), error semantics, and coverage boundaries. It also complements annotations by explaining openWorld behavior and the fallback pipeline.

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 schema already documents both parameters (claim and tolerance_pct) with 100% coverage. The description adds extra nuance by suggesting tolerance_pct 1–2 for hallucination detection and explaining how claim wording implies tolerance, adding value beyond 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It includes trigger phrases like 'Is it true that…' and 'fact check', and distinguishes it from general Q&A tools by focusing on factual correctness. This makes it unambiguous and differentiates it from siblings.

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 clarifies the two processing paths (financial vs. other claims). It provides clear context but does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use it.

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

All Arcgis Palmbeach 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer data questions, while discover_tools and suggest_questions both serve discovery. The three ArcGIS tools are distinct but are drowned out by the unrelated Pipeworx and prediction-market tools, making it hard to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are mostly snake_case but mix verb_noun (query_layer, search_datasets, remember), noun_noun (layer_info, entity_profile), and less conventional forms (search_within, generate_llms_txt). The naming is readable and not chaotic, but there is no single consistent pattern across the set.

Tool Count1/5

34 tools is excessive for a server named 'Arcgis Palmbeach'. Only 3 tools are GIS-related (search_datasets, query_layer, layer_info); the other 31 are unrelated Pipeworx data, prediction-market, and memory utilities. The count grossly mismatches the server's apparent purpose.

Completeness1/5

For the stated ArcGIS/Palm Beach County GIS purpose, the tool surface is severely incomplete: only search, query, and layer-schema lookup exist, with no data editing, feature operations, or map-service management. While the Pipeworx domain is heavily covered, that is not what the server name promises, so the surface is a poor fit.

Resources