Skip to main content
Glama

Nyc Parks

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 readOnlyHint=true and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that. It explains the distinct verdict values, and crucially clarifies the semantic difference between 'could_not_verify' (verification did not happen, carries error details, must not be treated as evidence) and 'unsupported' (source exists but no coverage). It also reveals the internal fallback routing logic and the use of live sources with verbatim evidence, which is far more than the annotations alone provide.

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 information-dense. Every section earns its place: the query-phrase opening aids intent matching, the dual-path explanation clarifies routing, the verdict list sets expectations, and the 'IMPORTANT for callers' paragraph prevents a common misreading of 'could_not_verify.' The structure is logical and scannable; it could be slightly tightened but is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 two distinct processing pipelines, six possible verdicts, and no output schema, the description covers everything needed: exact verdict semantics, the meaning of error-bearing results, the source-citation format (pipeworx://), and the high-level workflow. It even notes the tool replaces multiple sequential calls, giving agents a sense of scope and efficiency. No critical operational detail appears missing.

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 description coverage is 100% (both claim and tolerance_pct have descriptions), so the baseline is 3. The tool description adds value above that by explaining the claim parameter with natural-language examples and by providing guidance on tolerance_pct for hallucination detection ('set 1–2 for hallucination detection where any material error must be refuted') and the default cap (5). This extra usage nuance justifies a score above baseline.

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 uses a specific verb+resource: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It enumerates query phrasings ('fact check', 'verify the claim that...') and clearly distinguishes from sibling research tools by focusing on verifying factual claims. It also details the two-path routing (SEC EDGAR for company financials, grounded pipeline for everything else), making its scope unmistakable.

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 says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' giving clear when-to-use guidance. It also notes that this tool 'Replaces 4–6 sequential calls' which implies an alternative to multi-step lookups. However, it does not name specific sibling tools as alternatives or state when not to use it (e.g., for open-ended research or general Q&A), so it falls 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 Nyc Parks 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

The ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded trio are functionally near-identical to an agent (the beta is explicitly described as currently identical to stable), and the five polymarket_* tools (edges, arbitrage, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) have heavily overlapping concerns around finding and validating prediction-market edges. The descriptions are detailed, but the boundaries require careful reading to pick correctly.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools use snake_case and mostly follow a verb-first or noun-phrase convention, with recognizable family prefixes (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*) that aid navigation. Minor deviations exist — bare nouns like categories and events, and the inconsistent verb placement in bet_research vs. validate_claim — but the overall pattern is predictable.

Tool Count1/5

33 tools is already heavy, but the fatal problem is that the server is named 'Nyc Parks' while ~31 of 33 tools are a generic Pipeworx data-retrieval/prediction-market toolkit. The count is egregiously mismatched to the stated purpose; only 2 tools relate to NYC Parks at all.

Completeness2/5

For the server's literal name, the surface is severely incomplete: categories and events exist, but there is no way to look up parks, facilities, permits, or event details, and no CRUD-lifecycle coverage. Viewed as a Pipeworx data toolkit the surface is quite thorough, but that is not what the server claims to be, so the stated NYC Parks domain is barely covered and creates dead ends.

Resources