Skip to main content
Glama

Fodda Brand Intelligence

by ai.fodda

get_evidence

Read-onlyIdempotent

Get the source articles, case studies, and statistics behind a specific trend — with full citations and publisher attribution. Each item includes source URL, location, brand names, publication date, category, and a formatted citation. Use after search_graph when you need the supporting proof behind a trend. This is a direct lookup by trend ID — not a text search tool.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
top_kNoNumber of evidence items to return (default 5)
userIdNoOptional user identifier for trial usage tracking.
graphIdYesThe graph ID. Use list_graphs to see all options. Examples: 'retail', 'tech', 'food', 'travel', 'beauty', 'sports', 'sic', 'pew', 'ce-design', 'ezra-eeman-wayfinder', 'dhl-ecommerce-trends-2026', 'automotive-color-trends', 'alyson-stevens-macro', 'dentsu-creative-marketing', 'pwc/sxsw-2026-key-insights', 'green-house/thrive-report', 'michaels-2026-creativity-trend-report', 'delta/the-connection-index'
for_node_idYesThe node_id from a prior search_graph result (e.g. '2507.0'). MUST come from the search result's node_id field. Node IDs are NOT sequential integers — do NOT guess or invent IDs like '1', '2', '3'. Do NOT pass the trend name.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already signal read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, so the description need not restate those. It adds useful behavioral context by enumerating the returned item fields and emphasizing this is a direct ID lookup, which sets accurate expectations beyond the annotations.

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?

Three focused sentences deliver the core capability, return-value details, and usage context without redundancy. Every sentence is purposeful and the most important information is front-loaded.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains both the kind of evidence returned and the fields present in each item, such as source URL, publication date, and formatted citation. This provides enough detail for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret its result 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents graphId and for_node_id thoroughly, including examples and explicit warnings about not guessing IDs. The description adds only the general 'direct lookup by trend ID' framing without introducing new parameter-specific semantics, so baseline 3 fits.

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?

States the verb 'Get' with a precise resource: source articles, case studies, and statistics behind a specific trend, including citations and publisher attribution. It explicitly distinguishes itself from a text-search tool, which separates it from search_graph and other sibling 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?

Provides explicit workflow guidance: 'Use after search_graph when you need the supporting proof behind a trend.' It also states when not to use the tool with 'not a text search tool,' clarifying its role relative to alternatives.

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

All Fodda Brand Intelligence 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

The tools are largely distinct, with clear roles for discovery, search, evidence, node detail, neighbor exploration, supplemental data, visualization, and account checks. The main overlap risk is between brand_tracker and search_graph for brand-specific queries, but their descriptions steer usage toward different granularities.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a predictable verb_noun structure such as search_graph, get_node, list_graphs, and check_supplemental_status. The only clear outlier is brand_tracker, which is a noun phrase rather than an imperative verb_noun name.

Tool Count5/5

13 tools cover a complete brand-intelligence workflow without feeling bloated: discovery, search, deep dives, evidence retrieval, supplemental context, visualization, account management, and external URL handling. Each tool has a real role in the overall pipeline.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface covers the full research journey: list_graphs, search_graph, get_node, get_neighbors, get_evidence, get_supplemental_context, check_supplemental_status, visual generation, and account/capabilities checks. This is a read-only intelligence domain, so the absence of create/update/delete tools is appropriate, not a gap.

Resources