Skip to main content
Glama

Epa Regulations

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive, and the description adds rich behavioral context: the two routing paths, return format (verdict list, citation, reasoning), and crucial semantics for could_not_verify vs unsupported, including verification_error details. This goes well beyond the annotations and prevents misinterpretation.

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 front-loaded with trigger phrases and structured logically: usage, routing, return values, then warnings. It is dense with necessary information for a complex verify tool; the 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls' note adds efficiency context. Some minor redundancy exists (e.g., restating verdict types), but overall it earns its length.

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 2 params, no output schema, and strong annotations, the description fully covers: purpose, routing logic, output format, verdict definitions, error semantics, and the benefit over sequential calls. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to safely and effectively invoke it.

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, providing solid baselines. The description adds extra meaning beyond schema by explaining tolerance_pct overrides the implied tolerance and its default cap, and shows examples for claim. This is a small but meaningful increment over the schema.

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?

Description clearly identifies the tool as a natural-language claim verification tool with a specific verb ('check'), resource ('factual claims'), and scope ('against authoritative sources'). It includes multiple trigger phrases and distinguishes from siblings by describing the company-financial fast path vs. grounded pipeline, making it unmistakable when to invoke.

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?

Explicit 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' sets a clear condition. It also implies exclusions by contrasting with the grounded pipeline and noting it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, though it doesn't explicitly mention alternative tools or when NOT to use it.

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

All Epa Regulations 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

The server includes many overlapping tools (e.g., multiple ask_pipeworx variants, epa_regulation vs. epa_search vs. discover_tools). More critically, the tool set covers vastly different domains (Polymarket bets, npm packages, AI visibility, memory storage) alongside EPA regulations, making it hard for an agent to distinguish purposes.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names use a mix of styles: underscore (epa_regulation, ask_pipeworx), camelCase (deep_research, suggest_questions), and verb phrases (scan_competitor_ai_presence). No consistent pattern is followed across the set.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is high for a server named 'Epa Regulations'. The vast majority are unrelated to EPA regulations (e.g., Polymarket, npm scanning, memory functions), making the scope mismatched. A focused server should have fewer, domain-specific tools.

Completeness1/5

For a server claiming to be about EPA regulations, only two tools (epa_regulation, epa_search) are directly relevant. The rest are from unrelated domains, leaving severe gaps in expected functionality like rule updates, compliance checks, or cross-referencing with other environmental data.

Resources