Skip to main content
Glama

Faa 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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, but description adds critical behavior: company financials use structured XBRL fast path with percent-delta math; other claims fall through to grounded pipeline; and the crucial warning that could_not_verify does not count as evidence, carrying verification_error. This goes well beyond annotation hints.

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?

Description is long but every sentence carries distinct information: examples, use case, routing logic, return format, caller warnings. Structured with clear sections; no filler.

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, description fully specifies return values (verdict enum, actual value, citation, reasoning) and distinguishes error vs unsupported. It also covers the two-pipeline logic and replaces multi-step calls, making the tool's behavior predictable.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema already has 100% coverage with decent descriptions, but the description adds practical nuance: tolerance_pct default is implied by wording capped at 5, and recommends 1-2 for hallucination detection. It also provides concrete claim examples, improving semantic understanding.

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 natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with multiple example phrasings ('fact check', 'verify the claim that…'). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying two distinct pipelines (SEC EDGAR for financials, grounded for all else), making scope unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' Also explains it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, indicating when to prefer it. However, it does not explicitly mention when-not-to-use alternatives, so it stops short of a full exclusion list.

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

All Faa 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same 5,714-tool catalog with heavily overlapping purposes, and ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx. Similarly, bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, and polymarket_fill_risk all target prediction-market analysis and could easily be confused by an agent. The two FAA tools (faa_regulation, faa_search) are distinct, but they are buried among a dozen unrelated data-lookup and memory tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun or noun_verb pattern (faa_search, resolve_entity, compare_entities, validate_claim, discover_tools, unsubscribe). Minor deviations exist, such as ask_pipeworx and pipeworx_feedback lacking underscores, and the polymarket_* family mixes noun-led names, but overall the naming is readable and predictable.

Tool Count1/5

33 tools for a server named 'Faa Regulations' is a severe mismatch: only 2 of the 33 tools (faa_regulation, faa_search) relate to FAA regulations, with the rest covering general data lookups, prediction markets, SEC filings, memory storage, npm dependency checking, and llms.txt generation. The count is far too high for the stated domain, and most tools do not belong in this server at all.

Completeness2/5

The actual FAA surface is thin: faa_search provides keyword lookup and faa_regulation returns full text or a part's section list, so basic citation-lookup workflows work, but there is no update/amendment tracking, no browse-by-part navigation beyond a section list, and no related aviation data such as NOTAMs or TFRs. The dominant Pipeworx tool family is unrelated to FAA regulations, so an agent using this server for its apparent purpose would hit dead ends quickly.

Resources