Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Peterborough

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?

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints, but the description adds crucial behavioral nuance: the distinction between could_not_verify (check did not happen, carries verification_error) and unsupported (no source covered), plus the tolerance_pct override semantics. This is the kind of detail agents need to interpret results correctly and is fully consistent with the 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 dense but well-organized: trigger phrases, usage, pipeline routing, return format, and caller warnings each get a sentence or two. It is longer than ideal but every sentence earns its place given the tool's complexity. The structure is front-loaded and scannable, only missing a bulleted list to break up the return-value enumeration.

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 full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: verdicts, actual value with citation, reasoning, and both failure modes. It also explains the two execution paths and the tolerance override. For a 2-parameter tool with these edge cases, this is as complete as one could expect.

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% (both parameters have descriptions), so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining that tolerance_pct 'overrides the tolerance implied by the claim wording' and suggesting use for hallucination detection. It also gives example claim phrasings that make parameter intent concrete, justifying a score above baseline.

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 natural-language trigger phrases and a clear verb+resource: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from generic Q&A tools by describing the dual pipeline (SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded fallback) and notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making its unique purpose unmistakable even among many 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?

It clearly states when to use: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also differentiates the two internal paths and provides an important caller warning about could_not_verify vs unsupported. However, it does not explicitly name sibling tools to avoid or give a 'when-not' scenario, so it stops short of the highest tier.

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

All Arcgis Peterborough 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
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tool families overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route questions to the same underlying 5,767 tools with significant functional overlap. Polymarket tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk) also have blurred boundaries around edge detection and fill risk. The ArcGIS tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) are distinct, but the non-ArcGIS tools dominate and create confusion.

Naming Consistency2/5

The naming conventions are inconsistent across the set. Some tools use verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, query_layer, search_datasets, list_subscriptions), some use bare verbs (forget, recall, subscribe, unsubscribe), and others use descriptive multi-word names (polymarket_fill_risk, scan_competitor_ai_presence, generate_llms_txt). The ask_pipeworx family and polymarket_* family are internally consistent, but the overall set mixes styles without a clear pattern.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy for a server that appears to be an ArcGIS data server but includes a massive Pipeworx data-research and prediction-market subsystem. The ArcGIS portion only has 3 tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer), while the rest form a separate general-purpose research/betting toolkit. The count feels bloated and unfocused relative to the server's stated name.

Completeness2/5

The ArcGIS surface is incomplete: search_datasets, layer_info, and query_layer offer no update/create/delete or metadata exploration beyond one layer at a time. The Pipeworx portion is broad but lacks clear lifecycle coverage for subscriptions (create/cancel works, but no update), and the memory tools (remember/recall/forget) are peripheral. The set feels like an accidental aggregation of unrelated domains rather than a complete surface for one purpose.

Resources