Skip to main content
Glama

swapi

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only and idempotent annotations, it discloses that routing candidates may be live, that no candidate is currently active, that behavior currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and that results are compared against the stable router. This is exactly the kind of experimental-state transparency an agent needs.

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 minimal, but each sentence earns its place: beta relationship, identical interface, current no-candidate status, usage directive, and the no-fallback clarification. It is front-loaded with the core definition and does not waste words.

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?

It covers the interface, response shape, current routing state, and how the tool behaves when no candidate is active. Since there is no output schema, the reference to 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx fills the main gap, though it depends on the agent having that sibling's knowledge.

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%, so the question parameter and its aliases are already documented in the input schema. The description only states 'same arguments' without adding new semantic detail, so the schema carries the weight and the baseline score 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 immediately identifies this as a beta variant of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape. It clearly distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx and positions itself as the experimental edge, making the tool's role unmistakable.

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?

It provides an explicit usage condition: use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired and when participating in the candidate comparison experiment. It does not explicitly state the negative case, such as preferring the stable router for production-grade certainty, though the beta framing strongly implies it.

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

All swapi 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The tool set mixes two unrelated domains (Star Wars and Pipeworx data services), which is initially confusing. Within the Pipeworx suite, tools like ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded are clearly differentiated, but some overlap exists (e.g., deep_research vs. compare_entities both do multi-source lookups). Overall, most tools have distinct purposes, but the domain mismatch lowers clarity.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools use snake_case consistently (e.g., ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, resolve_entity). The naming pattern is mostly verb_noun or descriptive_compound, which is predictable. Minor deviation: some tools start with a verb (ask_pipeworx) while others start with a noun (entity_profile), but the style is uniform.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is on the high side but not unreasonable for a data-heavy server. However, the set covers two distinct domains (Star Wars and Pipeworx), making it feel bloated. The count could be reduced by separating the domains or pruning rarely-used tools.

Completeness3/5

The Pipeworx side appears comprehensive, covering queries, profiles, comparisons, subscriptions, alerts, and memory. The Star Wars side is incomplete—it lacks tools for vehicles, species, or individual characters (only search_people exists). The overall surface has gaps in one of its two domains.

Resources