Skip to main content
Glama

Openweather

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already provide readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive hints, but the description adds crucial behavioral disclosure beyond those: the meaning of each verdict, especially 'could_not_verify' (check did not happen, carries verification_error, must not be shown as evidence) and 'unsupported' (no source found). It also explains the two routing paths, giving the agent a complete mental model of internal behavior.

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?

The description is long but every sentence earns its place. It opens with familiar query phrases, states the purpose, covers routing, output semantics, error meanings, and a high-level efficiency note—all without repetition or fluff. The structure flows naturally from usage to behavior to return values.

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, the description compensates fully by enumerating the verdict values, the actual value + citation format, and reasoning output. It also explains the two internal paths and the failure semantics, so the agent knows exactly what to expect. Given only 2 simple parameters and 100% schema coverage, this is complete.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema: it explains that tolerance_pct overrides the claim's implied tolerance, suggests 1–2 for hallucination detection, and notes the default is implied by wording capped at 5. The claim parameter also gets real-world examples showing format, which the schema lacks.

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 specifies a clear verb-resource pairing ('validate claim') and immediately lists natural-language triggers. It explicitly distinguishes the tool's scope from siblings by describing the company-financial fast path vs. the grounded fallback, and notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It differentiates between company-financial claims (SEC EDGAR + XBRL path) and any other claim (grounded pipeline), and explains how tolerance_pct should be adjusted for hallucination detection. This clearly frames when to use the tool and how to tune it.

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

All Openweather 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes with detailed descriptions. However, 'ask_pipeworx' and 'ask_pipeworx_grounded' are very similar, and 'polymarket_arbitrage' and 'polymarket_edges' overlap in scope, which could cause confusion for an agent.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names mostly use snake_case but mix verb-first (e.g., 'compare_entities', 'resolve_entity') and noun-first (e.g., 'air_quality', 'entity_profile') patterns. Some names are single words ('forecast', 'geocode'), showing overall inconsistency.

Tool Count3/5

With 30 tools, the server covers many domains (weather, company info, betting, memory, subscriptions). While each tool serves a purpose, the count is on the higher side and could be streamlined, but it's not excessive given the diverse functionality.

Completeness4/5

The tool set provides comprehensive coverage for its domains: weather (current, forecast, air quality), company research (profile, compare, recent changes, validation), betting (research, arbitrage, edges), memory (CRUD), and subscriptions (CRUD). Minor gaps include no tool for editing subscriptions or deleting weather data, but these are outside the intended scope.

Resources