Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Puyallup

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?

The annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds significant behavioral context beyond those: it explains the verdict enum, clarifies the crucial distinction between 'could_not_verify' (check failed) and 'unsupported' (no source), and describes the dual pipeline (SEC EDGAR/XBRL vs. grounded). This is transparent, actionable guidance that annotations alone don't provide.

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 typical but every sentence contributes (triggers, routing, verdicts, error semantics, efficiency). It could be more front-loaded with a one-line summary instead of starting with example phrasings, but it remains readable and avoids redundancy.

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?

Without an output schema, the description fully explains return values (verdict options, citation, reasoning) and error cases (could_not_verify vs unsupported). It also covers the two routing paths and the tool's efficiency advantage over sequential calls, making it self-sufficient for an agent to understand usage without external examples.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Even though schema coverage is 100%, the description adds extra meaning for tolerance_pct: explains it overrides the claim's implied tolerance, recommends values for hallucination detection (1-2), and notes the default cap of 5. It also clarifies how the claim parameter is used. This goes beyond the schema descriptions.

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 states a specific verb ('validate', 'fact check', 'verify') and resource ('claim'), and clearly differentiates from general Q&A tools by focusing on natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It also provides example phrasings and distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx by noting it replaces multi-step 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?

The description explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and details the routing for company-financial claims vs. other claims. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' or direct alternative names, but the context is clear enough for an agent to select this tool over general Q&A tools.

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

All Arcgis Puyallup 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

Several tool clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all serve research questions through the same router, and the five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research form a dense prediction-market cluster. Even with detailed descriptions, an agent choosing between these near-synonyms would frequently need extra reasoning or make the wrong pick.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names mix product-prefixed verbs (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_arbitrage), generic verbs (remember, forget, recall, subscribe), and noun phrases (entity_profile, layer_info, recent_alerts). There is no consistent verb_noun or prefix convention across the set, making the tool surface feel patchwork rather than systematically named.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the count is already on the heavy side, but it is especially mismatched with the server name 'Arcgis Puyallup': only search_datasets, query_layer, and layer_info actually belong to that GIS domain. The rest are a broad Pipeworx research and prediction-market platform, so the set feels bloated and off-scope for the apparent purpose.

Completeness3/5

The ArcGIS read-only surface is minimally reasonable: search, schema inspection, and querying cover basic open-data consumption. The Pipeworx side is quite rich, with memory, subscriptions, lookups, grounded verification, and discovery, but the named GIS domain is thinly served and lacks obvious capabilities like listing all datasets or browsing layers without a keyword. Overall, coverage is uneven and hard to evaluate cleanly because the server mixes two unrelated purposes.

Resources