Skip to main content
Glama

Data Cincinnati

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?

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial context about return values (verdict types), the distinction between could_not_verify and unsupported, and the associated verification_error structure. It also warns explicitly that could_not_verify must not be treated as evidence, which is critical behavioral guidance beyond the 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 lengthy but well-structured, opening with example phrasings, then stating the use case, then detailing specific behaviors and return information. Each section serves a purpose; the length is justified by the tool's complexity. It is not overly verbose despite covering multiple paths and error semantics.

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?

Without an output schema, the description fully explains the return values (verdict options, citation, reasoning) and the error-handling semantics. It covers both routing paths, the meaning of each verdict, and the caveat about could_not_verify. For a tool with moderate complexity and no output schema, this description is highly complete.

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% parameter coverage with clear descriptions for both 'claim' and 'tolerance_pct'. The description adds minimal parameter-specific value; it references 'exact percent-delta math' in relation to tolerance but does not elaborate on how to set or interpret tolerance beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate given the schema's completeness.

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 explicitly names the tool's function ('validate claim', 'fact check', 'verify the claim that…') and specifies it verifies natural-language factual claims against authoritative sources. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by describing the fast path for company-financial claims and fallback for other claims, making it clear what this tool does that others do not.

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 states a clear usage trigger ('Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct') and explains the two routing paths (SEC/XBRL fast path vs grounded pipeline). It also notes it replaces multiple sequential calls. However, it does not explicitly list exclusions or alternative tools for subjective/non-factual queries, so it stops short of full when-not guidance.

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

All Data Cincinnati 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical), ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route the same queries, and the five polymarket_* tools overlap in opportunity scanning. entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes also pull similar company data, making tool selection genuinely ambiguous.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names are snake_case with a mostly verb-first convention (ask_pipeworx, scan_dependency, validate_claim, resolve_entity). A few noun-first names like polymarket_edges, entity_profile, and recent_alerts deviate slightly, but the pattern is predictable and readable throughout the 34-tool set.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the surface is heavy for what the server name (Data Cincinnati) implies, and only 3 tools actually relate to Cincinnati open data. The rest spans prediction markets, npm analysis, AI visibility, memory, and subscriptions, suggesting either scope creep or a misleading server name.

Completeness3/5

The research workflow is fairly covered: discovery (discover_tools, suggest_questions), query (ask_pipeworx), grounding (ask_pipeworx_grounded), verification (validate_claim), profiling (entity_profile), comparison (compare_entities), and monitoring (subscribe, recent_changes). However, notable gaps exist — no direct single-source raw query, no export/visualization, no subscription or alert management details beyond basic CRUD, and the Cincinnati-specific surface is thin (no geospatial or full-catalog access).

Resources