Skip to main content
Glama

Github

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Ask Pipeworx — Grounded

ask_pipeworx_grounded
Read-onlyIdempotent

Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads. Same routing as ask_pipeworx — picks the right tool from 5,798 across 1517 sources, fills arguments, fetches the data — then EXTRACTS the answer using ONLY what the tool result contains. Returns {answer, evidence (verbatim quote), confidence, source, fetched_at, refusal_reason:null} on success, OR an explicit refusal {answer:null, refusal_reason:"not_in_source"|"no_tool_match"|"tool_error"|"data_truncated"|"llm_error"} when the data doesn't directly answer. Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts (financial verdicts, legal claims, medical lookups, public statements). Costs one extra LLM call vs ask_pipeworx — prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoAlias for question.
textNoAlias for question.
inputNoAlias for question.
queryNoAlias for question.
promptNoAlias for question.
questionYesYour question 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?

Annotations already mark the tool read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial non-obvious behavior: it extracts answers using only tool results, refuses explicitly when data is insufficient, enumerates refusal reasons, and discloses the extra LLM call cost. This goes beyond the structured hints and gives the agent realistic expectations for failure modes.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, routing, extraction behavior, return contract, refusal semantics, usage context, and cost comparison. Key differentiators are front-loaded before the operational details.

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 success response shape and the refusal response shape, including refusal reason values. It also explains the relationship to ask_pipeworx, the source scale, and cost trade-off, making it complete enough for an agent to select and invoke 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%, and the schema already documents the single semantic parameter 'question' plus its aliases. The description does not add parameter-level detail, so the schema carries the burden; a baseline of 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 opens with a specific, non-generic statement: it is a hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads, with the same routing as ask_pipeworx. It clearly distinguishes itself from the plain ask_pipeworx sibling by describing the extraction constraint and refusal behavior rather than just restating the name.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use when answers will be quoted, cited, or acted on and facts must not be invented, with concrete domains like financial verdicts, legal claims, and medical lookups. It also gives a when-not-to-use rule by noting the extra LLM call cost and explicitly preferring ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.

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

All Github 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs. get_repo vs. validate_claim), but there is some overlap between ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, and between bet_research and polymarket_edges. Overall, an agent can generally distinguish them.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names lack a consistent pattern: some are verb_noun (search_repos, get_user), others are noun_verb (entity_profile), and many are compound descriptor phrases (polymarket_arbitrage, scan_dependency). This mixed convention makes the set feel disjointed.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is excessive for a server named 'Github', especially since many tools (e.g., ai_visibility_check, bet_research) are unrelated to GitHub functionality. The count would be appropriate for a broader 'Pipeworx' server but not for a focused GitHub server.

Completeness2/5

The GitHub-relevant tools are limited to read-only operations (get_repo, list_commits, etc.), lacking essential actions like creating/updating repos, issues, or pull requests. The inclusion of numerous non-GitHub tools does not compensate for these gaps.

Resources