Skip to main content
Glama

Geoboundaries

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description adds substantial behavioral nuance: routing to sources, emission of verbatim evidence with pipeworx:// citations, the full verdict enum, and the crucial distinction between could_not_verify (check did not happen) and unsupported (no source exists). This goes well beyond annotations and gives agents the interpretation they need to act correctly.

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 dense and information-rich, front-loaded with purpose and usage. It is somewhat long, but each clause earns its place, providing examples, route-specific behavior, return values, warnings, and even a performance note. The structure is mostly linear and readable; a slight tightening of the opening phrasing would make it fully concise, but it is far above average.

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 2-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is exceptionally complete. It specifies the return verdict enum, evidence/citation format, error semantics for could_not_verify, and the unsupported case. It also covers both supported claim types (financial vs. other) and the tolerance behavior. There is no ambiguity left for an agent.

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?

Though schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches both parameters significantly. It provides a concrete example for claim, explains that tolerance_pct has a 0.5–50 range, defaults to wording-implied with a 5% cap, and notes that 1–2% is appropriate for hallucination detection—details not in the schema. This gives agents precise guidance for setting tolerance.

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 as a natural-language claim verifier that returns a verdict against authoritative sources, with concrete example phrases ('fact check', 'verify the claim that…'). It distinguishes itself from sibling Q&A tools by focusing on verification with evidence and structured verdicts, and by explicitly describing the two routing paths (SEC EDGAR for financial claims, grounded pipeline for others).

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states when to use: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It further differentiates company-financial claims from other factual claims, explains the automatic routing, and warns about the interpretation of could_not_verify. It also notes that the tool replaces 4–6 sequential calls, giving the agent a strong usage heuristic.

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

All Geoboundaries 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

Many tools have overlapping or unclear purposes, e.g., multiple entity research tools (entity_profile, recent_changes, compare_entities, validate_claim) and several betting tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_kalshi_spread). The memory tools (remember, recall, forget) and generic lookup tools (ask_pipeworx, discover_tools) further blur boundaries, making it hard for an agent to consistently select the right tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some use snake_case verbs (forget, recall, remember), others are noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes), and many have mixed conventions (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx, bet_research). There is no clear verb_noun structure, and the naming style varies widely across the set.

Tool Count3/5

At 22 tools, the count is within a reasonable range, but the server's stated purpose ('Geoboundaries') is severely mismatched with the actual tool set, which covers data retrieval, betting, memory, and more. The number is not excessive for the breadth of functionality, but it feels bloated for a server that should be focused on geographic boundaries.

Completeness1/5

The server is named 'Geoboundaries' but only provides two boundary-related tools (get_boundaries, get_geometry). The remaining 20 tools are unrelated, covering general data access, betting arbitrage, and memory operations. This leaves massive gaps for the implied domain (no tools for boundary editing, search by location, or other geographic operations) while over-supplying tools for unrelated tasks.

Resources