Skip to main content
Glama

Geonames

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

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, so the safety profile is fully covered. The description adds valuable context beyond annotations: the meaning of 'could_not_verify' (the check did not happen, and it is not evidence), the distinction from 'unsupported', and the two pipeline routes. No contradiction with annotations.

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 fairly long but each sentence earns its place. It front-loads the purpose with natural-language triggers, then explains the pipeline split, verdicts, and an important caller warning. It is structured logically, though slightly verbose, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it describes the return payload (verdict, actual value, citation, reasoning), explains the two distinct execution paths, and details the critical semantics of 'could_not_verify' vs 'unsupported'. This fully equips an agent to understand the tool's behavior and output.

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 coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does not add significant parameter semantics beyond the schema; it references tolerance_pct in the context of hallucination detection, but the schema already explains the override and default behavior. The claim parameter is also fully described in 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?

The description clearly states a specific verb and resource: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It includes example natural-language triggers and distinguishes between the structured SEC EDGAR fast path and the general grounded pipeline, which helps differentiate it from the sibling ask_pipeworx_grounded tool.

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 when-to-use guidance is provided: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains when the structured path vs grounded pipeline applies based on claim type. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools to use instead, so it stops 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 Geonames 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

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded; multiple polymarket_* scanners), and the mix of unrelated domains makes it hard to tell which tool is canonical for a task. The few geographic tools are distinct, but they are buried among dozens of non-geographic tools.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of verb_noun (search_geonames, resolve_entity), proper-noun prefixes (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), and descriptive phrases (ask_pipeworx, bet_research, scan_competitor_ai_presence). No consistent pattern or verb style across the set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is far more than a Geonames-focused server needs, and most are unrelated to geospatial data. The count would be borderline for a general data platform, but it is excessive and unfocused for the stated server name.

Completeness1/5

The geographic surface is severely incomplete: only four tools (search_geonames, get_nearby, find_postal_codes, get_timezone) cover a tiny sliver of typical Geonames functionality like reverse geocoding, elevation, or distance calculations. The many non-geographic tools do not compensate for the missing core domain coverage.

Resources