Skip to main content
Glama

Ticketmaster

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already include readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond these: the specific verdict list, the distinction between could_not_verify (check did not happen, not evidence) and unsupported (no source), and the two routing paths. There is no contradiction with annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense and information-rich, but somewhat long. Every sentence contributes value, from usage context to return semantics to the important caller note. The front-loaded examples and clear paragraphing help structure it, though it could be slightly trimmed without loss.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains return values (verdicts, actual value with citation, reasoning), handling of edge cases (could_not_verify vs unsupported), and the two operational paths. With only 2 well-documented parameters, the description covers all necessary context for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 meaning: for tolerance_pct, it explains that it 'overrides the tolerance implied by the claim wording' and recommends 1–2 for hallucination detection. The claim parameter is illustrated with concrete examples. This goes beyond the schema's basic definitions.

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 and resource: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It is clearly distinguished from siblings by focusing on fact-checking claims (e.g., 'fact check', 'verify the claim that…') and explicitly notes it replaces 4–6 sequential calls, making its role unique among the listed 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?

Explicit guidance is provided: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also distinguishes between financial claims (via SEC EDGAR/XBRL) and other claims, and clarifies when to use tolerance_pct for hallucination detection. No exclusions are needed, but the context is complete.

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

All Ticketmaster 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

C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tools fall into two unrelated domains (Ticketmaster event discovery and Pipeworx data research), and within the Pipeworx set there are near-duplicate tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, plus multiple overlapping prediction-market tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, etc.). An agent would struggle to choose among these overlapping options and may not realize that most tools are unrelated to the server's stated name.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming uses consistent snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: Ticketmaster resource fetchers are bare nouns (event, venue, attraction, classification) while search tools use verb_noun (event_search, venue_search). Pipeworx tools vary between verb phrases (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim) and descriptive noun phrases (entity_profile, polymarket_kalshi_spread). This inconsistency makes predicting tool names harder, though each name is still readable.

Tool Count2/5

41 tools is excessive for a server titled 'Ticketmaster' when only about 10 are Ticketmaster-related; the other 30 cover an entirely different service (Pipeworx). The count is far beyond a focused scope and suggests the server should be split into two separate, well-scoped MCP servers.

Completeness4/5

For the Ticketmaster half, the surface is complete for read-only event discovery (search events/venues/attractions, get single resources, classifications, autocomplete). For the Pipeworx half, the tool suite is extensive, covering lookup, research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and feedback. The only notable gap is the lack of any write operations, but this is consistent with the read-only nature of the underlying APIs.

Resources