Skip to main content
Glama

Deezer

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only, non-destructive annotations, the description explains the two routing paths, the exact verdict values, that could_not_verify is a non-evidential failure carrying verification_error, and that unsupported means no source covers it. It also reveals it returns verbatim evidence with citations and reasoning. This is substantial behavioral disclosure not present in annotations or schema.

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 front-loaded with concrete query examples, uses bolded actionable warnings, and every sentence adds purpose, scope, or behavioral nuance. The 'IMPORTANT for callers' block is well-structured and keeps the most critical error semantics prominent.

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 the tool's complexity, the description fully covers what the agent receives (verdict enum, actual value with citation, reasoning), how errors are signaled, and how to interpret edge cases. With no output schema, the description carries the full burden of return-value explanation and meets it completely.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant semantic value beyond the property descriptions: it explains how tolerance_pct overrides the claim-wording tolerance, caps the default at 5%, and suggests setting 1–2 for hallucination detection. This helps the agent choose parameter values correctly.

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 states a specific verb ('verify/confirm/refute') and resource ('natural-language factual claims against authoritative sources'), and distinguishes the tool from siblings by documenting its dedicated routing for company-financial vs. other claims. It also contrasts with generic lookups by noting 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 Guidelines5/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly states 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It details when each internal path (SEC EDGAR fast path vs. grounded pipeline) applies and clarifies that could_not_verify/unsupported are different failure modes, providing clear usage context and exclusions.

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

All Deezer 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

B3.2/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools overlap in purpose (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research all route queries to structured data), and the set mixes Deezer music tools with an unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket suite. An agent would struggle to pick the right tool for a given request.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is mixed: single-word nouns (album, artist, track, chart), verb_noun snake_case (list_subscriptions, resolve_entity), and verbose multi-concept names (scan_competitor_ai_presence, polymarket_kalshi_spread). No consistent pattern across the set.

Tool Count1/5

37 tools for a server named 'Deezer' is far beyond a music API scope; the overwhelming majority are unrelated data-research, prediction-market, and utility tools. This is an extreme mismatch between the server name and the tool surface.

Completeness2/5

For the Deezer music domain, the surface is incomplete (no playlists, user library, lyrics, or radio), while the many unrelated tools each cover only fragments of their domains. The overall set lacks coherent coverage of any single purpose.

Resources