Skip to main content
Glama

Oregon Open Data

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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint: false. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond these annotations: the meaning of each verdict, the distinction between could_not_verify and unsupported, the error object verification_error{stage,detail}, the citation format, and how tolerance_pct overrides implied wording. This is rich, non-redundant behavioral disclosure.

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 longer than average, but every sentence adds value: query patterns, usage context, routing behavior, return value details, and an important caller caveat about could_not_verify. It is front-loaded with natural-language queries and well structured. Slightly verbose but justified by 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?

With no output schema, the description must explain return values, and it does: verdict enum, actual value with citation, reasoning, and error semantics. It also covers routing, source coverage, and performance benefits. For a tool of this complexity, the description is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke it 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?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters thoroughly. The description does add context for tolerance_pct ('default implied by wording, capped at 5') and gives an example for claim, but these mostly mirror the schema's own descriptions. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly specifies the tool's function: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources ('Is it true that…' / 'fact check' / 'verify the claim that…'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by naming the exact use case (checking factual correctness) and describing the structured SEC path for company-financial claims versus the grounded pipeline for all other claims.

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 states when to use this tool: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains how different claim types are routed (SEC/XBRL fast path vs. grounded pipeline), but it does not explicitly name alternatives or exclusion criteria, so it falls just shy of full when/not-when guidance.

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

All Oregon Open Data 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The tool set is a chaotic mix of unrelated domains: Oregon Open Data tools (datasets, metadata, query) are buried among dozens of tools for Pipeworx general query, Polymarket betting, memory management, and AI visibility. Many tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim) making it impossible for an agent to distinguish the right tool for a given task without deep inspection.

Naming Consistency1/5

Naming is wildly inconsistent: snake_case (ai_visibility_check, pipeworx_feedback), camelCase (bet_research, datasets, metadata, query), mixed (ask_pipeworx_grounded, polymarket_arbitrage). No consistent verb_noun or pattern exists, and many names are vague (remember, recall, forget) without connection to the server's assumed domain.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is excessive for a server ostensibly about Oregon Open Data, which only has 3 relevant tools. The remaining 30 are from other services (Pipeworx, Polymarket, etc.) and do not belong, making the count inappropriate for the server's declared purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the Oregon Open Data domain, the surface is bare: only search, metadata, and query. Missing operations like upload, update, or delete datasets. The heavy presence of unrelated tools (betting, memory, AI visibility) does not compensate for the gap in the actual domain coverage.

Resources