Skip to main content
Glama

Weatherapi

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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description discloses substantial behavioral detail: dual-path execution (SEC EDGAR+XBRL fast path vs. grounded pipeline), the complete verdict vocabulary, and a crucial caveat that 'could_not_verify' means verification did not happen and must not be treated as evidence. It also explains the meaning of 'unsupported', which is extra context not evident from 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 fairly long but every sentence contributes meaningful information—examples, routing logic, verdict semantics, and error handling. It is effective and thorough, though the density makes it less scannable and slightly wordy.

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 takes full responsibility for explaining return values and edge cases. It lists the verdict types, explains 'could_not_verify' and 'unsupported' behaviors, mentions the pipeworx:// citation format, and describes fallback routing. This gives the agent a complete mental model of the tool's behavior.

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 rich descriptions for 'claim' and 'tolerance_pct'. The description's mention of 'exact percent-delta math' adds marginal context, but it does not significantly expand on the schema's parameter semantics, so the baseline of 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 opens with concrete natural-language examples and explicitly states the tool performs 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources'. It clearly distinguishes the tool's scope from siblings by describing both structured financial-claim routing and generic grounded fallback, and notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls.

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 gives a direct trigger: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also provides routing guidance for different claim types (financial vs. other). However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state exclusions, so it's not fully explicit on when not to use it.

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

All Weatherapi 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have near-identical purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly described as functionally identical, and six Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread, polymarket_edge_tracker) overlap heavily in discovery, edge, and arbitrage roles. Company-research tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes) also blur boundaries, making misselection likely.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use lowercase snake_case with underscores, which is a consistent base convention. However, the lexical pattern varies: bare single words (current, forecast, remember, forget) coexist with verb_noun compounds (resolve_entity, validate_claim) and noun compounds (entity_profile, polymarket_edges). The lack of a uniform verb_noun structure makes the set less predictable, though still readable.

Tool Count1/5

35 tools is well into the 'too many' range, and the server's name promises weather while only 4 of 35 tools (current, forecast, astronomy, marine) are weather-related — an extreme mismatch between the declared purpose and the actual surface. The remaining 31 tools form a general data/prediction-market platform that would be better served under a different server name.

Completeness4/5

Judged by its actual (non-weather) domain, the set is quite complete: generic routed lookup, grounded answer mode, deep research, entity resolution/profile/comparison, claim validation, subscriptions, memory, discovery, and feedback are all present. The weather subset covers current conditions, forecasts, marine, and astronomy, though it lacks historical weather and alert endpoints — a minor gap.

Resources