Skip to main content
Glama

Opensensemap

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes well beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations by explaining the dual pipeline (SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded fallback), the distinct meaning of 'could_not_verify' (check did not happen, not evidence) and 'unsupported' (no source exists), and the return structure. This is critical behavioral context an agent needs to avoid misinterpreting results.

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: example phrasings, usage scope, routing logic, return values, and caveats for two special verdicts. It is front-loaded with the most actionable info and structured logically.

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?

Given no output schema, the description fully covers return values (verdict, actual value with citation, reasoning) and explains edge statuses (could_not_verify, unsupported) including error details. The description is self-sufficient for an agent to use the tool 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%, and both parameters are already well documented. The tool description does not add any parameter-specific meaning beyond the schema; it merely restates claim examples that are already in the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with a specific verb ('validate/verify') and resource. It includes concrete example phrasings and distinguishes itself from generic Q&A tools like ask_pipeworx by focusing on claim verification with verdict outcomes.

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?

Explicitly states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct,' providing a clear when-to-use trigger. However, it does not name alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use this tool, so it misses the 'when-not/alternatives' part of a 5.

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

All Opensensemap 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical in behavior today, while discover_tools and suggest_questions overlap as discovery/onboarding entry points. The Polymarket tools also blur together across arbitrage, edges, edge tracking, and fill risk, making tool selection prone to mistakes despite long descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently lowercase snake_case and readable, but they mix conventions: some are clear verb_noun actions like validate_claim and compare_entities, while others are noun-led like recent_alerts and entity_profile, or domain-prefixed like polymarket_edges and opensensemap_nearby. There is no single predictable naming pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold for a heavy tool set, and the tools span several unrelated domains: OpenSenseMap sensors, Pipeworx data access, Polymarket research, memory, subscriptions, and AI visibility. A server named Opensensemap hosting this much unrelated functionality feels poorly scoped.

Completeness3/5

The OpenSenseMap portion covers nearby discovery, box lookup, and area averages, but lacks historical/time-series access and station lifecycle operations, which are notable gaps for a sensor data server. The broader Pipeworx surface has strong lookup, research, validation, and subscription coverage, so the main incompleteness is in the named domain.

Resources