Skip to main content
Glama

Maryland Open Data

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 annotations (readOnly, idempotent, etc.), the description discloses crucial behavioral details: the two verification paths, the meaning of each return verdict, and especially the distinction between could_not_verify (check did not happen) and unsupported (no source exists). It also mentions verbatim evidence and citations, giving a rich understanding of the tool's behavior.

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 long but densely packed with necessary information. It front-loads purpose and examples, then explains return values and edge cases. The 'IMPORTANT for callers' section is well-placed. While a bit verbose, every sentence serves a purpose, so it remains appropriate and well-structured.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and lack of output schema, the description provides a surprisingly complete picture: it explains return values, all possible verdicts, failure modes, pipeline selection, and usage constraints. It covers everything an agent needs to confidently invoke and interpret the results without additional documentation.

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% for both parameters, but the description adds valuable guidance: it explains tolerance_pct override semantics, recommends values for hallucination detection, and clarifies default behavior. It also provides example claims that illustrate the expected format. 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It provides specific example phrasings and distinguishes itself from general Q&A or research tools by focusing on fact-checking claims. It also differentiates the two internal pipelines (SEC EDGAR for company financials, grounded otherwise), making the verb+resource specific.

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 states when to use the tool ('use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct') and outlines the automatic routing logic. It does not explicitly name alternatives or say when not to use it, but it clearly implies this tool replaces multi-step manual lookup chains, providing effective usage guidance.

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

All Maryland Open Data 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Tools are generally distinct in purpose, but the server name 'Maryland Open Data' conflicts with the inclusion of many unrelated Pipeworx tools (e.g., prediction market tools). This creates ambiguity about the server's actual domain, making it hard for agents to know what to expect.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use snake_case (ai_visibility_check), others are plain (datasets, query), and some are descriptive phrases (ask_pipeworx_grounded). No consistent verb_noun pattern emerges, leading to a chaotic feel.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is high, and the majority are unrelated to Maryland Open Data, suggesting scope creep. The server tries to be a general-purpose data platform but is named after a specific dataset, making the count feel excessive and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

The Maryland Open Data subset is minimal (3 tools: datasets, metadata, query), lacking update/delete/CRUD operations. The broader set includes many query and analysis tools, but the server's stated purpose is not fully covered.

Resources