Skip to main content
Glama

Semrush

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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals key behaviors: extraction is confined verbatim to tool results, refusals are explicit with enumerated refusal_reason values, evidence is a verbatim quote, and an extra LLM call is incurred. These are meaningful behavioral disclosures not expressed in the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then precisely details the behavior, return contract, refusal reasons, and usage guidance. It is dense but every sentence earns its place, and the structure makes it easy for an agent to decide whether to invoke this tool.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description fully specifies both success and refusal response shapes, including the evidence field and the enumeration of refusal_reason values. It also covers cost, routing behavior, and appropriate use cases, so an agent has complete information to invoke and interpret the tool 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 coverage is 100%, and the schema already documents the single conceptual parameter, question, including its aliases. The description adds no further parameter-specific semantics, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden.

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 a specific mode: a hallucination-resistant grounded answer mode that routes through the same tool-selection pipeline as ask_pipeworx but extracts answers only from the fetched tool result. It names the exact behavior, return shape, and distinguishes itself from its primary sibling, ask_pipeworx.

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?

It is explicit about when to use this tool: whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and for high-stakes domains where hallucination is unacceptable. It also gives an explicit exclusion: prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups, and it discloses the cost tradeoff of one extra LLM call.

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

All Semrush 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded are very similar, and the multiple Polymarket tools could be confused. The memory tools (remember, recall, forget) are distinct.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case, but the pattern is not strictly verb_noun. Some names are descriptive phrases (e.g., scan_competitor_ai_presence), while others are straightforward (e.g., keyword_overview). Overall readable but not highly consistent.

Tool Count3/5

32 tools is on the high side for a single server, but the scope is broad (SEO, finance, FDA, betting, memory). The tool count feels slightly excessive, yet each tool appears justified by its specific use case.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of business research needs: SEO, SEC filings, FDA data, betting analytics, and memory. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct social media or HR data), but the coverage is impressive for a general-purpose data server.

Resources