Skip to main content
Glama

Visualcrossing

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool as read-only and idempotent, and the description adds important behavioral context: candidate improvements are enabled live when under test, no candidate is active right now, and it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. It also clarifies 'Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router', which is genuinely useful and not redundant with annotations.

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 front-loaded with the core definition and keeps the beta behavior details together. There is some mild redundancy in repeating that it is identical to ask_pipeworx, but every sentence still contributes meaningful context.

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 a tool with one required parameter and no output schema, the description is sufficiently complete: it says the response shape matches ask_pipeworx, explains current routing state, and confirms it is a fully working router rather than a stub. No essential detail 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%, so the schema already documents the required question parameter and all aliases. The description adds 'same arguments' but no additional parameter-level detail, which matches the baseline expectation for fully covered schemas.

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 the tool as the beta version of ask_pipeworx and explains that it is an identical universal router with candidate routing improvements. It states the same 5,798 tools, arguments, and response shape are used, which removes ambiguity and distinguishes it from the stable counterpart.

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?

The description explicitly says to 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and notes results are compared against the stable router. This gives clear context and names the stable alternative, though it stops short of an explicit 'do not use when' exclusion.

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

All Visualcrossing 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. Even tools with overlapping domains (e.g., ask_pipeworx and deep_research) are differentiated by use case: single lookups vs multi-faceted research. Weather, Polymarket, memory, and subscription tools are completely separate, and descriptions clarify any potential confusion.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names mostly follow a verb_noun pattern, but some are single verbs (forget, recall) or noun_noun (entity_profile, weather_timeline). The mix is noticeable but still predictable and readable, with consistent snake_case formatting throughout.

Tool Count4/5

With 34 tools, the server is large but each tool serves a specific function within the broad data-access domain. The count is justified given the wide range of domains (weather, company data, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, etc.), though it is on the higher end for typical MCP servers.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a wide range of operations: data retrieval, comparison, fact-checking, weather, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and meta-tools. There are no obvious gaps for the intended use of a unified data gateway, though some niche data sources might not be directly addressed.

Resources