Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Pflugerville

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false. The description adds important behavioral nuance: could_not_verify means the check did not happen and carries verification_error{stage,detail}, and unsupported means no source exists. It also discloses the automatic routing behavior and that the verdict list includes six possible outcomes. Minor gap: does not describe rate limits or latency, but with annotations covering safety, this is solid.

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 a single dense block with front-loaded examples and a clear structure: trigger phrases → when to use → routing → return verdicts → caller warning → replacement value. Each sentence earns its place, but it is somewhat long and could be broken into easier-to-scan sentences/lines.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's complexity (two pipelines, six verdicts, error semantics), the description covers the key behavioral contract well: verdict meanings, special handling for could_not_verify, and the structured vs grounded path. No output schema exists, so describing return verdicts is necessary and it does. It could mention example output or latency, but the core completeness is strong.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds context about tolerance_pct (hallucination detection use case, defaults) and claim wording, but does not go beyond the schema's parameter descriptions significantly. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 query examples and states a specific verb+resource: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It also distinguishes from siblings by explicitly describing the dual pipeline (SEC EDGAR + XBRL for company-financial claims, grounded pipeline for all other claims).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' and enumerates exact trigger phrases. It also gives when-not-to-interpret guidance: could_not_verify must not be shown as evidence. It contrasts with the alternative of 4-6 sequential calls, positioning this as a consolidation.

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

All Arcgis Pflugerville 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

The tool set contains multiple overlapping tools for data querying (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, suggest_questions) and prediction market analysis (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread), making it difficult for an agent to distinguish which tool to use. The GIS-specific tools are few and could be confused with general data tools.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some use verb_noun or noun_verb (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, search_datasets), while others are longer phrases (generate_llms_txt, scan_competitor_ai_presence, polymarket_kalshi_spread). Mixed conventions and lack of uniformity reduce predictability.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the count is high for a server ostensibly focused on ArcGIS Pflugerville. Many tools are unrelated to GIS (e.g., prediction market tools, general Pipeworx utilities), making the tool surface feel bloated and poorly scoped.

Completeness2/5

For an ArcGIS server, the coverage is minimal: only three tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) directly support GIS operations. Missing typical GIS capabilities like geocoding, spatial analysis, or editing. The inclusion of many non-GIS tools does not compensate for the lack of depth in the core domain.

Resources