Skip to main content
Glama

Data Kcmo

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Ask Pipeworx Beta

ask_pipeworx_beta
Read-onlyIdempotent

Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router (same 5,798 tools, same arguments, same response shape) with candidate routing improvements enabled live whenever one is under test. No candidate is active right now (the last was retired on outcome evidence 2026-07-26), so this currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing; results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges. Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router, just the experimental edge.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoAlias for question.
textNoAlias for question.
inputNoAlias for question.
queryNoAlias for question.
promptNoAlias for question.
questionYesYour question or request in natural language. Accepts query, q, prompt, text, input as aliases.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses live candidate routing experiments, the current absence of an active candidate, the retirement date, and the comparison process against the stable router. It also explicitly addresses fallback behavior: 'Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router', which annotations do not convey.

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?

The description is compact and well ordered: identity, current state, usage guidance, and fallback/functional guarantee. Details like the tool count and retirement date are relevant and earn their place; there is 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?

For an experimental variant with rich annotations, the description covers what the tool is, when to use it, its current runtime state, and its response shape by reference to ask_pipeworx. Even without an output schema, the description gives an agent enough to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, with q, text, input, query, and prompt all documented as aliases for question. The description only adds 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx and does not provide additional parameter semantics, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 clearly identifies ask_pipeworx_beta as a beta version of ask_pipeworx with the same universal router scope ('same 5,798 tools, same arguments, same response shape'). It distinguishes the tool from the stable ask_pipeworx by framing it as the experimental edge, and the name/title reinforce that identity.

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?

The description explicitly says 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing', giving a direct condition for selection. It also explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges, and notes that no candidate is active right now, so the agent knows it currently behaves exactly like ask_pipeworx.

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

All Data Kcmo 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research cluster is highly overlapping—beta is explicitly identical right now and grounded differs mainly in answer extraction. Several other pairs (ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence, and the six prediction-market tools) also blur boundaries, making misselection likely.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are uniformly snake_case and benefit from clear prefixes (ask_pipeworx_, kcmo_, polymarket_, pipeworx_). However, conventions are mixed between bare verbs (forget, recall, remember), noun phrases (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, recent_alerts), and verb_noun forms, and similar names like polymarket_edges vs polymarket_edge_tracker add confusion.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well into the bloat range, and only 3 are actually Kansas City-specific despite the server name. The surface bundles prediction markets, memory, feedback, llms.txt generation, and npm scanning alongside data lookup, making it heavy and unfocused; several meta-tools could be collapsed.

Completeness4/5

As a read-only data research platform, the surface is quite complete: discovery, querying, grounded answers, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, claim verification, subscriptions, and memory are all covered with few dead ends. Minor gaps exist—no subscription update, no direct citation-URI fetch tool, and a thin KC-specific set—but agents can work around them.

Resources