Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Tallahassee

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?

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description fully discloses critical behavioral semantics: the could_not_verify vs unsupported distinction, the verification_error payload, the percent-delta math, and the instruction not to present could_not_verify as evidence. This is substantial added transparency.

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 average but each segment adds value: usage trigger, routing logic, return verdicts, error caveat, and efficiency argument. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and examples, and the 'IMPORTANT for callers' callout is clearly separated. Slightly dense but justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

The description covers what the tool does, when to use it, how it routes, what it returns, and how to interpret ambiguous verdicts. Given there is no output schema, explaining the verdict set and the error field is essential, and the description does this thoroughly. The agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema for tolerance_pct: it explains that it overrides the implied tolerance and gives a concrete use case (1–2% for hallucination detection). The claim parameter is also illustrated with examples.

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 uses a specific verb ('verify', 'validate') and resource ('natural-language factual claims') and distinguishes itself by describing the dual-path routing (SEC EDGAR for company-financial, grounded pipeline for all else) and replacing multiple sequential calls. Example queries make the scope immediately clear.

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 ('whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct') and explains that it replaces a 4–6 call pipeline. It does not explicitly name sibling alternatives or exclusions, but the context is unambiguous.

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

All Arcgis Tallahassee 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
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools are near-duplicates or strongly overlapping: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are only mode/version variants, and discover_tools overlaps with suggest_questions, ai_visibility_check with scan_competitor_ai_presence, and the Polymarket tools with each other. An agent would frequently need a deep read of the descriptions to know which one is truly appropriate.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming is almost entirely snake_case and mostly follows a verb_noun or domain_noun pattern, e.g. query_layer, list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, compare_entities. Minor deviations like entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback, and polymarket_arbitrage are noun-first, but the overall pattern is still recognizable and predictable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools for a server branded 'Arcgis Tallahassee' is far too many, especially since only a handful of them are GIS-related. The rest constitute a large general-purpose Pipeworx data platform, which at this tool count becomes unwieldy and will increase an agent's selection failure rate.

Completeness3/5

The core read-only GIS flow is covered (search_datasets → layer_info → query_layer), and the Pipeworx side is broad. However, there are notable gaps: no ArcGIS service management, no layer/feature editing, no spatial operations, and no deeper GIS functions. Because the server's stated purpose is ArcGIS-focused, the overall surface is only partially complete relative to that domain.

Resources