Skip to main content
Glama

Fodda Deep Research

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 cover the safety profile with readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint hints. The description adds useful behavioral context by outlining the returned item fields and the deterministic lookup behavior. It doesn't discuss edge cases like missing nodes or empty results, but the described behavior is still substantially transparent.

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?

Four sentences, each with its own role: what for, what output looks like, when to use it, and how it differs from search. There is no superfluous wording 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?

Given that there is no output schema, the description explicitly describes the returned citation fields and attribution. Combined with the schema's complete parameter descriptions and the tool's annotation profile, the definition supplies all necessary information for the agent to decide when and how to invoke it 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%, so the baseline for this dimension is 3. The description's mention of 'direct lookup by trend ID' and 'after search_graph' adds no significant parameter-level detail beyond what the schema already says about graphId and for_node_id.

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 specifies a distinct verb and resource: getting the source articles, case studies, and statistics behind a specific trend, with a specific output shape including URLs and publisher attribution. It also distinguishes the tool from sibling tools by stating it is a direct lookup by trend ID, not a text search tool.

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 gives explicit guidance on when to use the tool: 'Use after search_graph when you need the supporting proof behind a trend.' It provides an explicit exclusion: 'not a text search tool', which helps an agent route to the right tool among siblings such as search_graph.

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

All Fodda Deep Research 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct roles: graph discovery, graph search, node detail, neighbor mapping, evidence retrieval, deep research launch, and status polling are all identifiable. The main ambiguity is between search_graph and get_label_values(label='Trend') for listing trends, and between deep_research_topic's built-in supplemental coverage and get_supplemental_context.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set largely follows a snake_case verb_noun pattern such as search_graph, list_graphs, get_node, read_url, and generate_visual. The outlier is deep_research_topic, which is noun-led rather than verb-led, and get_my_account is a minor deviation from the pure verb_noun pattern, but neither seriously disrupts usability.

Tool Count5/5

14 tools is well-scoped for a deep-research platform: graph discovery, graph search, retrieval, evidence, supplemental data, status polling, visualization, URL ingestion, and account/capability helpers all earn their place. The set feels like a deliberate pipeline rather than a miscellany.

Completeness4/5

The research lifecycle is well covered: discover graphs, search, explore trends, get supporting evidence, add supplemental data, launch deep research, poll status, and generate visuals. Minor conveniences like canceling or listing past research sessions are missing, but there are no dead ends for the core workflow.

Resources