Skip to main content
Glama

Data Iledefrance

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds crucial behavioral details: the exact verdict enum, the critical distinction between could_not_verify and unsupported (with the warning that could_not_verify carries verification_error and must not be shown as evidence), and the internal pipeline routing. This exceeds annotation coverage significantly.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: trigger phrases, usage directive, routing logic, return format, and a critical error-handling warning. It is front-loaded with the most important identification cues and remains structured for readability.

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 compensates by listing the full verdict vocabulary and describing the return structure (value, citation, reasoning). It also covers the two claim categories and the error semantics, making it fully sufficient for an agent to understand expected behavior and invoke the tool 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 description coverage is 100%, with both claim and tolerance_pct fully described including defaults and examples. The description adds minimal beyond the schema—only re-emphasizing 'exact percent-delta math' and the default cap—so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool's function as natural-language claim verification, listing multiple trigger phrases ('fact check', 'verify the claim that…'). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explaining the two routing paths (SEC EDGAR fast path for company financials vs. grounded pipeline for all other claims) and explicitly notes it replaces 4–6 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?

It explicitly states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and outlines the two claim categories with their respective handling. However, it does not name alternative tools or exclusion cases (e.g., when to use deep_research instead), 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 Data Iledefrance 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., multiple ask/tools for querying (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and multiple company analysis tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes). The prediction market tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, etc.) further blur distinctions. Agents would frequently select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: snake_case (ask_pipeworx, dataset_info), camelCase (ai_visibility_check, scan_competitor_ai_presence), and phrases (pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage). No pattern emerges, making tool discovery harder.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is excessive for a server ostensibly about Île-de-France Open Data. Only 3 tools (dataset_info, query, search_datasets) relate to that domain, while the rest are a general-purpose data agent with many disjoint capabilities. The count feels bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

For the declared purpose (Île-de-France data), the tool set is missing CRUD operations (no create/update/delete). For the actual general data use, there are gaps like missing person entity resolution, data visualization, and file handling. The deep_research tool requires an account, creating a barrier.

Resources