Skip to main content
Glama

Adzuna

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.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses critical failure modes: could_not_verify indicates a check did not happen and must not be treated as evidence, while unsupported means no source covers it. It also details the verification pipeline, return verdicts, and the use of verbatim evidence with citations, giving the agent a complete behavioral model.

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?

The description is dense but efficiently organized: trigger phrases, purpose, execution paths, return values, and critical caveats are each addressed in one or two sentences with no filler. The structure front-loads the primary intent and then adds necessary behavioral detail, earning its length.

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 lacking an output schema, the description fully covers return values (verdict categories, actual value, citation, reasoning) and explains the two pipelines. It also includes important usage caveats (could_not_verify vs unsupported) and the tool's efficiency advantage, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 both parameters (claim and tolerance_pct) are already well-documented in the input schema with examples, permissible ranges, and default behavior. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning; its mention of percent-delta math is already captured by the schema's description of tolerance_pct.

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 is explicit and specific: it states the tool performs natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with a fast path for company-financial claims and a grounded pipeline for all other claims. It includes trigger phrases and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on fact-checking with a verdict output.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also explains the two execution paths based on claim type and notes that it replaces 4-6 sequential calls, providing clear guidance on when to use it as a single-call alternative.

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

All Adzuna 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are clearly distinct, but ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research overlap with the base router, and the polymarket_* family contains several scanning/arbitrage tools with fuzzy boundaries. The long descriptions help, but an agent could easily call the wrong variant.

Naming Consistency3/5

There are coherent clusters (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*, bare Adzuna verbs), but the overall server mixes snake_case, bare nouns, compound names, and -_prefixed names without a unifying convention. Some tools like compare_entities, entity_profile, and scan_dependency follow a descriptive style that does not match the verb_ noun pattern used elsewhere.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold, and the server named 'Adzuna' includes far more than job-search functionality: prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, npm dependency checks, AI visibility probes, and llms.txt generation. The count feels like a bundled mega-platform rather than a focused job-data server.

Completeness3/5

For a job-search-focused server, the Adzuna tools cover search, categories, history, regional stats, salary histograms, and top companies, but there is no direct job-detail or application workflow. For the broader Pipeworx research surface, coverage is very thorough, so the main completeness problem is the lack of a clear unified domain rather than a specific missing operation.

Resources