Skip to main content
Glama

Zoho_crm

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description adds significant behavioral detail: full verdict enumeration, the meaning of could_not_verify (including verification_error{stage,detail} and that it must not be shown as evidence), and the unsupported case. It also reveals internal pipeline routing and efficiency gains, which are not in 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 but every sentence earns its place; trigger phrases, routing, verdict semantics, and error handling are all essential. It could be more front-loaded by moving the 'IMPORTANT' caller note earlier, but the current structure flows from use case to behavior to caveats.

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?

For a 2-param tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it states what it returns (verdict, actual value with citation, reasoning), defines all possible verdicts, explains the error state, and describes routing logic. This fully compensates for the missing output schema.

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

Parameters4/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining tolerance_pct's override behavior and hallucination-detection use case ('set 1–2 for hallucination detection'), and ties claim examples to the financial pipeline. This supplements the schema's parameter descriptions.

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 opens with concrete trigger phrases ('Is it true that…', 'fact check') and clearly states the verb + resource: natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources. It differentiates from siblings by specifying the two routing paths (SEC EDGAR for financial, grounded pipeline for all else) and notes 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 Guidelines4/5

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

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct.' It also distinguishes financial vs. general claims routing. However, it does not explicitly name alternative tools or state when not to use, only implied via scope ('unsupported means we looked and cover no source for it').

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

All Zoho_crm 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

The five Zoho CRM tools are well-differentiated, but the 31 Pipeworx/Polymarket tools create heavy overlap (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research all serve similar lookup purposes). Mixing two unrelated domains makes it easy for an agent to select a tool from the wrong group.

Naming Consistency2/5

The Zoho tools share a consistent zoho_ prefix, but the remaining 31 tools follow no clear convention—ask_pipeworx, bet_research, deep_research, entity_profile, forget, scan_dependency, etc. mix noun-first, verb-first, and bare verb patterns without a unifying scheme.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well beyond what a Zoho CRM server needs, and only 5 actually relate to Zoho CRM. The bulk are for unrelated data sources, prediction markets, memory management, and web generation, making the set feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

The Zoho CRM surface includes create, get, list, and search, but omits essential operations like update, delete, and upsert. The other 31 tools cover a completely different domain, so the server fails to provide complete lifecycle coverage for its stated purpose.

Resources