Skip to main content
Glama

Zendesk

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. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark it read-only and open-world, but description adds crucial behavioral nuance: could_not_verify means the check didn't happen and shouldn't be treated as evidence, unsupported means no source coverage. Also clarifies the fast-path vs grounded pipeline. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Despite being longer than typical, every sentence earns its place. Starts with usage intents and purpose, then details routing, return values, and an essential warning about could_not_verify. Well-structured and front-loaded; no fluff.

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?

With no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the verdict types, actual value with citation, reasoning, and error semantics. It covers edge cases and usage context, making it complete for a complex tool with two pipelines.

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 covers 100% of both parameters with detailed descriptions. The tool description adds context about percent-delta math for financial claims but doesn't elaborate on tolerance_pct beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since schema carries the burden.

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?

Description clearly states the tool performs natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources, with specific verb 'verify' and resource 'claims'. It provides concrete user intents and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing solely on fact-checking, even 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 says 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also describes two routing paths (SEC EDGAR for company-financial, grounded pipeline for other facts) and implies not to compose multiple calls. Clear context for when to use this over alternatives.

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

All Zendesk 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially the Pipeworx query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim) which all provide factual answers, making it unclear which to use. The set also mixes Zendesk tools with a large number of prediction market and data tools, creating confusion.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: Zendesk tools use 'zd_' prefix, Pipeworx tools use various prefixes like 'ask_', 'bet_', 'compare_', etc., and some are named with full words. There is no uniform pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is high for a server named 'Zendesk', especially since only 5 are Zendesk-specific. The majority are unrelated to Zendesk, indicating the tool count is inappropriate for the implied purpose.

Completeness1/5

For a Zendesk server, the tool set is severely incomplete, offering only basic CRUD operations (get, list, search for tickets and users). Missing essential Zendesk features like ticket creation, update, delete, or macros, while containing many irrelevant tools from other domains.

Resources