Skip to main content
Glama

Themeparks

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses crucial behavioral details: the two pipeline paths, exact percent-delta math for financials, and the semantic distinction between 'could_not_verify' (an error, not evidence) and 'unsupported' (no source found). This prevents misinterpretation of results and is essential context.

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 every sentence earns its place, covering usage, pipelines, return values, and caller warnings. It is front-loaded with intuitive examples and includes a clearly marked 'IMPORTANT' warning section. The length is justified by the tool's complexity, though a slight trim could aid scanning.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description carries the burden of explaining return values. It lists all verdict types, mentions the value with citation and reasoning, and clarifies the meaning of error-related verdicts. It also covers the two execution paths and the consolidation of multiple calls, making it sufficiently complete for an agent.

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 main description does not add parameter-level detail; both parameters are thoroughly described in the input schema (100% coverage). Since the description itself doesn't elaborate beyond the schema, it meets the baseline of 3 without adding extra semantics.

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 a natural-language claim verifier that returns a verdict, citing several example phrasings ('fact check', 'verify the claim that…'). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on fact-checking with verdicts, making it stand out from generic question-answering or research tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states when to use: 'whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also differentiates between company-financial claims (via SEC EDGAR fast path) and all other factual claims (grounded pipeline), giving concrete routing guidance. Mentioning that it replaces 4–6 sequential calls clarifies its efficiency advantage.

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

All Themeparks 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct, well-documented purposes, but several overlap or are explicitly redundant: ask_pipeworx_beta currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx, discover_tools and suggest_questions both serve as discovery entry points, and scan_competitor_ai_presence wraps ai_visibility_check. The thematic split between theme-park, data-lookup, prediction-market, and memory tools also forces agents to navigate unrelated clusters.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming is a mix of verb_noun (list_destinations, get_wait_times, remember, resolve_entity), noun_phrase (entity_profile, recent_changes, bet_research), and brand-prefixed nouns (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending). Within families the patterns are consistent, but across the set the conventions are inconsistent and sometimes reverse the verb/noun order, making the surface harder to predict.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is heavy, and the server is named Themeparks yet only 4 tools actually relate to theme parks. The remaining 31 tools span Pipeworx data retrieval, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and feedback, creating a bloated and misaligned scope. A tightly scoped theme-park server would need far fewer tools, and a general data research server would not be named Themeparks.

Completeness2/5

For the implied theme-park domain, the surface is thin: list destinations, get entity metadata, get schedule, and get wait times cover basic lookups but omit search, attraction details beyond waits, historical data, pricing, dining/show info, and park updates. The non-theme-park tools are extensive, but they do not complete the server's apparent stated purpose.

Resources