Just a mass spec match is not much proof that you have the right compund. Knoledge of the sample - that this compund would be expected in the sample helps. But, if you were reading a report in which a compund was described in the way you have described was used as a standard, what questions would you have. Reviewers of publications and procedures will have similar questions.
How sure are you that the compund is what you think it is? It it is a metabolite that has shown up in urine and is not found in other patients urine, could it be because the patient had something different for lunch?
If you are using this as a compund identity standard - your identification is no stronger than the confrimation of the standard material.
If you are going to use this as a quantitation standard, is it pure? There are a lot of compunds you can get out of urine that will never make it down the GC column, but the inclusion of these compunds will affect the recorded weight on the balance.
If results you are seeking are of value, are they worth getting a sample of isovalerylglycene of known (and certified) purity? If so - do it. If not, are the results you are seeking realy worth seeking?
(I used to teach some classes on the use of a mass spec system - and I had a favorite set of slides showing spectra of different compunds with similar spectra and close retention times.)