Skip to main content
Glama

Usgs Earthquakes

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description explains the critical semantic of could_not_verify (check did not happen, not evidence) and unsupported, plus the two execution paths (SEC EDGAR fast path vs grounded pipeline). This is substantial behavioral disclosure that prevents misuse.

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 well-structured, with front-loaded trigger phrases, a clear purpose, and a crucial warning. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly tighter.

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 no output schema, the description covers the return values (verdict, value, citation, reasoning), special verdict meanings, and routing behavior. It fully compensates for the lack of an output schema and leaves no major usage question unanswered.

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% with detailed descriptions for claim and tolerance_pct. The description mentions 'exact percent-delta math' but does not add parameter-specific details beyond the schema, so baseline 3 applies.

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 opens with concrete trigger phrases and states 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It clearly defines the tool's scope (financial vs other claims), lists verdicts, and distinguishes itself from multi-call pipelines, making it unmistakably specific.

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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also describes the automatic routing for financial vs non-financial claims, though it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it.

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

All Usgs Earthquakes 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
Disambiguation1/5

The tool set is dominated by tools unrelated to USGS earthquakes (e.g., Polymarket betting, company profiles, memory operations). An agent would find it nearly impossible to distinguish the few earthquake-specific tools from the multitude of unrelated ones, leading to severe misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tool names follow a verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., search_earthquakes, count_earthquakes), which is consistent. However, the variety of verbs and domains creates a sense of incoherence, and some tool names are overly generic (e.g., process, run) in the broader context, though those are not present here. The naming pattern is acceptable but the inconsistency in domain scope reduces clarity.

Tool Count1/5

With 29 tools but only 3 directly related to earthquakes, the tool count is grossly inappropriate. The server's name suggests a focused purpose, but the vast majority of tools belong to other domains (e.g., Pipeworx queries, Polymarket betting, company data). This extreme mismatch makes the tool set bloated and misleading.

Completeness2/5

For earthquake data, the server provides only search, count, and get by ID. Missing are common operations like listing recent quakes, subscribing to alerts, or updating/correcting data. The coverage is minimal and insufficient for a comprehensive earthquake tool server, leaving significant gaps that agents could not work around.

Resources