Skip to main content
Glama

Tvmaze

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses critical error semantics: 'could_not_verify means the check did not happen ... must not be shown as one' and clarifies that 'unsupported means we looked and cover no source'. This goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, which only indicate safety, not the interpretation of inconclusive verdicts.

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 lengthy but every section serves a purpose: trigger phrases, use cases, routing, return values, error caveats, and efficiency note. It is front-loaded with examples, though it could be slightly trimmed without losing meaning.

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 enumerates all six verdicts, the citation format, and the two pipeline behaviors. It also explains when the tool fails (could_not_verify) and what unsupported means. This is highly complete for a complex verification tool.

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?

The schema already fully documents both parameters with examples and semantics (e.g., tolerance_pct overrides claim wording), so the description adds little beyond the schema. The description mentions 'exact percent-delta math' but does not elaborate on the parameters, so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 opens with explicit invocation examples ('Is it true that…' / 'fact check') and defines the tool as 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources'. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating it replaces a 4–6 step pipeline, making the purpose unambiguous.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

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

Provides an explicit usage condition: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also details the two routing paths (structured for company financials, grounded for others). However, it does not explicitly name alternative sibling tools or state when not to use this tool.

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

All Tvmaze 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools cover a wide range of domains (TV, finance, betting, memory, etc.), each with detailed descriptions that help distinguish their purposes. However, some overlap exists between related tools like bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, and polymarket_edges, though the descriptions clarify their distinct uses.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., get_show, list_episodes, resolve_entity). A few tools use single imperative verbs (remember, recall, forget), which is a minor deviation but still clear.

Tool Count3/5

The server has 31 tools, which is on the higher side. While each tool has a defined purpose, the scope seems too broad for a server named 'Tvmaze', as many tools are unrelated to TV (e.g., company analysis, betting, memory). A more focused set would improve coherence.

Completeness4/5

For a general-purpose data server, the tool set covers a wide range of tasks: TV show lookups, company research, betting analysis, memory management, and more. The inclusion of ask_pipeworx as a fallback for many queries compensates for missing specific tools. However, the TV-specific functionality is limited to search and schedule, missing details like cast or crew.

Resources