Skip to main content
Glama

Usgs Water

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: the SEC EDGAR vs. grounded pipeline routing, the different verdict meanings, the critical caveat that could_not_verify means no check happened and must not be presented as evidence. It also clarifies the distinction from unsupported, which goes well beyond annotation hints.

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 dense but every sentence adds necessary value: trigger phrases, usage guidance, pipeline breakdown, return values, and the critical error-handling caveat. It is front-loaded with examples, well structured, and free of fluff.

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 fully compensates by explaining the return verdicts, the citation, the reasoning, and the meaning of each non-obvious verdict (could_not_verify vs. unsupported). It also covers routing and the tool's efficiency advantage, making it complete for an AI agent to invoke and interpret results correctly.

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?

The input schema already provides 100% coverage of both parameters with clear descriptions and examples. The tool description adds no further parameter-specific semantics beyond what the schema already contains, so it meets the baseline but does not exceed it.

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 explicit natural-language trigger phrases and identifies the core action: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by stating it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making its unique role 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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct') and describes two routing paths (company-financial vs. any other claim). However, it does not name alternative sibling tools or explicitly state when not to use it, so it falls short of full exclusionary guidance.

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

All Usgs Water 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several clusters of tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all route/discover questions across the same 5,743 tools, differing mainly in mode or betaness. The polymarket_* family (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) similarly overlaps in prediction-market edge detection. An agent would frequently struggle to pick the right tool from these near-duplicate groups despite verbose descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Snake_case is used throughout, but patterns are mixed: some tools are verb-first (ask_pipeworx, find_sites, recall, forget, subscribe), some are noun phrases (current_conditions, entity_profile, bet_research), and some use a domain prefix (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*). The version-suffixed ask_pipeworx_beta is also a minor deviation from the otherwise clear descriptive style.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for a server named 'Usgs Water' since only 3 tools (current_conditions, daily_values, find_sites) actually relate to USGS water data. Even as a general Pipeworx platform server, the count is heavy, with many tools dedicated to niche prediction-market trading and meta-routing that inflate the surface.

Completeness1/5

Against the stated USGS Water purpose, the surface is severely incomplete: it lacks water-quality samples, groundwater data, site metadata details, historical statistics, rating curves, parameter code lookup, and flood/alert data. The remaining 31 tools cover an entirely different domain (SEC filings, drugs, prediction markets, npm scans, memory), so agents using this server for water data will hit dead ends almost immediately.

Resources