Skip to main content
Glama

Ask Pipeworx Beta

ask_pipeworx_beta
Read-onlyIdempotent

Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router (same 7,174 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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoAlias for question.
askNoAlias for question.
textNoAlias for question.
inputNoAlias for question.
packsNoOPTIONAL. Restrict routing to these pack slugs (e.g. ["sec-form-d","sec-13f"]) — the router then picks only from tools in those packs. Omit for the default full-catalog routing. Slugs come from list_packs / search_packs / https://pipeworx.io/directory; unlisted or unknown slugs are ignored and named in _meta.pack_scope.ignored, and if none of them resolves the question is routed across the whole catalog with _meta.pack_scope.full_catalog:true (never an empty answer).
queryNoAlias for question.
promptNoAlias for question.
messageNoAlias for question.
questionYesYour question or request in natural language. Accepts query, q, prompt, text, input, ask, message as aliases.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / packs
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "OPTIONAL. Restrict routing to these pack slugs (e.g. [\"sec-form-d\",\"sec-13f\"]) — the router then picks only from tools in those packs. Omit for the default full-catalog routing. Slugs come from list_packs / search_packs / https://pipeworx.io/directory; unlisted or unknown slugs are ignored and named in _meta.pack_scope.ignored, and if none of them resolves the question is routed across the whole catalog with _meta.pack_scope.full_catalog:true (never an empty answer).",
      +  "items": {
      +    "type": "string"
      +  },
      +  "type": "array"
      +}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), so the description's job is extra context, which it supplies: the router is a full working router with no fallback, candidate state is disclosed with a retirement date, and results feed a comparison against the stable router. It does not describe latency, rate limits, or what the response envelope looks like beyond 'same response shape' as the sibling.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The core distinction is front-loaded, which is good, but the same point is made three times: 'identical universal router', 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly', and 'this IS a full working router, just the experimental edge'. The no-candidate-active sentence is time-bound detail that will go stale and crowds out more useful guidance.

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?

For a router tool with rich annotations, a fully documented schema, and no output schema, the description covers parity with the stable sibling, candidate status, and fallback behavior. An agent has enough to call it correctly; only the concrete response envelope and the practical 'why choose this today' answer are 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 alias set and the packs restriction (including _meta.pack_scope.ignored and full_catalog fallback) are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds nothing about the nine parameters, so the baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific identity: a beta variant of ask_pipeworx that is an 'identical universal router (same 7,174 tools, same arguments, same response shape)' with candidate routing improvements enabled. This makes the difference from the sibling ask_pipeworx explicit rather than inferred.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges, which gives a clear selection condition. It stops short of an explicit when-not-to-use rule (e.g., 'prefer ask_pipeworx for production-stable results'), and since no candidate is currently active the practical distinction is nil, leaving the agent to decide on its own.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.