Skip to main content
Glama

Airquality

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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 6,425 across 1679 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.
askNoAlias for question.
textNoAlias for question.
inputNoAlias for question.
queryNoAlias for question.
promptNoAlias for question.
messageNoAlias for question.
questionYesYour question in natural language. Accepts query, q, prompt, text, input, ask, message as aliases.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / ask
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Alias for question.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / message
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Alias for question.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / question / description
      Previous value: -"Your question in natural language. Accepts query, q, prompt, text, input as aliases."New value: +"Your question in natural language. Accepts query, q, prompt, text, input, ask, message as aliases."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "question": "What was Apple's fiscal 2023 revenue?"
+  }
+]
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite annotations already declaring readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: exact success return shape ({answer, evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at}), refusal object with five enumerated refusal reasons, and the constraint that extraction relies solely on tool results. This goes far beyond what annotations convey.

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 yet efficient: it front-loads the core purpose, then covers routing, extraction behavior, return shape, refusal cases, use cases, and cost tradeoff. There is no filler—every sentence earns its place.

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?

Since there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains return values and refusal scenarios. It also provides sibling differentiation, use-case boundaries, and operational cost, making it complete for an agent to invoke 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 has 100% coverage, documenting the 'question' field and all aliases, so the schema already carries the parameter meaning. The description doesn't add parameter-specific semantics, but no deduction is warranted given full schema coverage.

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 opens with a precise positioning: 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads.' It then explains the mechanism—extracting answers using only tool-result content—and differentiates from the sibling ask_pipeworx by stressing grounded extraction and explicit refusal behavior. An agent can immediately tell this from the other ask variants.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: 'Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on' and 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.' It also quantifies the tradeoff ('costs one extra LLM call'), giving the agent a concrete decision rule between the two siblings.

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

All Airquality toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources