Skip to main content
Glama

Tmdb

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?

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the dual-path routing (SEC EDGAR vs. grounded pipeline), the full verdict list, and the critical distinction that could_not_verify means the check failed and must not be treated as evidence. This prevents serious misuse of the tool's output.

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 longer than average but every section earns its place: trigger phrases, routing, return values, and an imperative caller warning. It is front-loaded with purpose and structured to separate normal behavior from important 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?

With no output schema, the description fully specifies the return fields (verdict, value, citation, reasoning) and explains ambiguous outcomes (could_not_verify vs unsupported). It even notes the efficiency gain over sequential calls, making it self-contained for correct invocation.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with detailed descriptions, so the description doesn't add new parameter-level meaning. The baseline of 3 applies; no further elucidation is needed.

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 trigger phrases and a clear statement: 'natural-language claim verification against authoritative sources.' It clearly distinguishes itself from general Q&A siblings by explaining it replaces a multi-step pipeline and returns a verdict.

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 'Use whenever the agent needs to check whether something a user said is factually correct' and details routing based on claim type. However, it does not name specific alternative tools or explicitly state when not to use it beyond the factual-claim scope.

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

All Tmdb 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set blends two unrelated domains (TMDB and Pipeworx). Among Pipeworx tools, several overlap heavily (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, suggest_questions) with vague boundaries, making it hard for an agent to pick the right one. TMDB tools are distinct but the overall mixture creates confusion about which domain a request belongs to.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools use snake_case, which is consistent. However, naming styles vary widely: TMDB tools use simple noun or verb-first names (movie, search_movie, discover_tv), while Pipeworx tools use longer descriptive phrases with prefixes (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_arbitrage, entity_profile). The pattern is not predictable across the set.

Tool Count2/5

50 tools is excessive for a server named 'Tmdb'. Only about 18 tools are actually TMDB-related; the remaining 32 belong to the Pipeworx ecosystem. This inflates the count and makes the server feel bloated and unfocused, far beyond a well-scoped TMDB server.

Completeness3/5

The TMDB portion is quite complete (search, discover, details, credits, recommendations, trending, genres, configuration). However, the server's overall scope is muddled—it tries to cover two disjoint domains, so no single domain feels fully fleshed out. There are also some missing TMDB features (e.g., upcoming/now playing) that would require extra discovery. The Pipeworx tools cover data broadly but overlap in coverage.

Resources