Skip to main content
Glama

words

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?

The description discloses critical behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it is hallucination-resistant, extracts only from the tool result, returns a structured success object with evidence/confidence, and returns explicit refusal reasons when data is insufficient. It also notes the extra LLM call cost. This fully informs an agent of the tool's behavior and does not contradict the readOnly/idempotent 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 dense but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the tool's purpose, then explains routing, then gives the exact success/refusal contracts, then provides usage and cost guidance. It is not padded and is structured for quick consumption.

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?

This is a complex tool with no output schema, yet the description fully covers the expected return shape, refusal reasons, decision context, and relationship to sibling tools. It provides enough detail for an agent to call it correctly and interpret the result 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?

The input schema covers the single question parameter at 100%, including aliases like query, q, prompt, text, and input. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate. It does not need to compensate for schema gaps.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Halucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' and explains that it routes like ask_pipeworx and then extracts an answer only from tool results. It clearly distinguishes itself from the sibling ask_pipeworx by adding evidence and refusal behavior. An agent can tell exactly what this tool does.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use this tool ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on') and when not to ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'). It also names the alternative ask_pipeworx and explains the cost tradeoff of one extra LLM call. This is ideal usage guidance.

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

All words 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, and find_related with syn/rhy options duplicates find_synonyms and find_rhymes. The six Polymarket tools and four entity-research tools also have fuzzy boundaries, so agents will struggle to reliably pick the right one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Conventions are mixed: most tools follow verb_noun (ask_, find_, compare_, validate_) but several are bare nouns or noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alertes, recent_changes) and others are bare verbs (remember, forget, subscribe, unsubscribe). The server name 'words' matches only five of 36 tools, adding further confusion about what to expect here.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well into the heavy range, and the set bundles word lookups, a universal data router, six Polymarket tools, memory, subscriptions, and meta-utilities under one server. Many of these would be better split into dedicated, purpose-scoped servers.

Completeness4/5

For the dominant data-research and prediction-market scope, the surface is strong: grounded lookups, deep reseach, entity profiles, compareions, change feeds, claim verification, edge scanners, fill-risk checks, subscriptions, and memory are all covered. Minor gaps exist: taking 'words' literally there is no defintion or spelling tool, and there is no generic open-web search, but as a data-research toolkit it is quite complete.

Resources