Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Sanjose

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.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses specific behaviors: the two routing paths (SEC EDGAR + XBRL vs grounded), the verdict types, the meaning of 'could_not_verify' vs 'unsupported', and the warning that could_not_verify must not be treated as evidence. This is rich, non-obvious context that annotations don't convey.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but every sentence is information-dense and purposeful—covering use cases, routing, return values, and caller warnings. It is front-loaded with examples and structured logically, earning its length without fluff.

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 fully covers return values (verdict types, actual value, citation, reasoning) and error semantics. It explains the two main claim categories and the fallback pipeline, making it sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions (including examples and defaults). The tool description adds little new parameter-level info beyond mentioning exact percent-delta math, but the schema already explains tolerance_pct thoroughly, so the baseline of 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 clearly states the tool's function: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific example phrasings. It uses a specific verb+resource (verify claims) and distinguishes itself by mentioning the integrated pipeline that replaces multiple sequential calls, separating it from general-purpose info tools.

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 explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct', and it differentiates between company-financial and other claims. However, it does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, so it falls short of a 5.

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

All Arcgis Sanjose 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

While many tools have distinct purposes, there is overlap between ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, as well as multiple Polymarket and entity-related tools. Descriptions are detailed but could confuse agents on which tool to use for a specific query.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tool names use snake_case and many start with verbs, but there is inconsistency with noun-starting names like entity_profile, layer_info, and pipeworx_feedback. No strong verb_noun or other consistent pattern across the set.

Tool Count3/5

With 33 tools, the count is relatively high but could be justified for a broad data platform. However, given the server name 'Arcgis Sanjose', the number seems excessive as most tools are unrelated to ArcGIS geospatial functions.

Completeness2/5

The tool set is severely incomplete for the implied ArcGIS San Jose domain, with only 3 tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) supporting that purpose. The rest are from the Pipeworx ecosystem, creating a mismatch between server name and actual functionality.

Resources