Skip to main content
Glama

Intercom

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

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds beta status, the lack of an active candidate as of the retirement date, that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and that it is a fully working router rather than a fallback shim—useful experimental-risk context with no contradiction.

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?

Four sentences, front-loaded with identity and relationship to ask_pipeworx. There is slight redundancy between 'identical universal router' and 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly', but details like the retirement date and the no-fallback clarification earn their place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a no-output-schema router whose schema is fully documented, the description covers what it is, its current status, how to invoke it, and why it exists. It could say more about what behavioral differences 'newest routing' implies, but nothing essential for invoking it correctly is missing.

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 every alias is documented in the schema. The description only repeats 'same arguments' and gives no additional parameter-level semantics, so the baseline score applies.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Identifies it as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape, which distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx. It does not literally say 'answer a question by routing it to tools', but 'universal router' plus 'use it exactly like ask_pipeworx' makes the function clear.

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?

Directs use to exactly like ask_pipeworx when the user wants the newest routing and explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. It does not explicitly say when to prefer stable ask_pipeworx or ask_pipeworx_grounded, so exclusions are only implied.

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

All Intercom 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

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route factual questions to the same underlying catalog with unclear boundaries. Polymarket tools also overlap (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage), and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence are nearly the same operation.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a readable snake_case verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, resolve_entity, list_subscriptions). However, the set mixes two distinct naming families — ic_* for Intercom tools and pipeworx/* for the rest — and includes ambiguous generic names like remember/recall/forget that don't visually connect to the rest.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is far more than needed for an Intercom-focused server; the vast majority have nothing to do with Intercom and instead cover a sprawling Pipeworx data-research, prediction-market, and memory/subscription toolkit. The count alone is in the 'too many' range, and the scope mismatch makes it feel even more inflated.

Completeness2/5

For a server named Intercom, the surface is severely incomplete: only read/list/search operations exist for contacts and conversations, with no create, update, delete, send-message, or company-detail operations. The unrelated Pipeworx tools are fairly broad, but they don't compensate for the missing Intercom lifecycle coverage that the server name promises.

Resources