Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Branson

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Ask Pipeworx Beta

ask_pipeworx_beta
Read-onlyIdempotent

Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router (same 5,724 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.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses that candidate routing improvements are 'enabled live whenever one is under test' and that 'no candidate is active right now', so the tool currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. This goes well beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint) and addresses the experimental nature of the tool without contradiction.

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 identity and then adds current status, usage instruction, and a clarifying note. Each sentence earns its place, though the phrase 'falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router' is a slight redundancy after the opening, keeping it from a perfect score.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description bridges this by stating it has the 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx, which is a sibling an agent can reference. It also covers current behavior and testing context, but does not mention error handling or rate limits; for a beta clone of a known tool, this is adequate.

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 already documents all six parameters with full descriptions, including aliases for 'question' (q, text, input, query, prompt). The description only mentions 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which provides no additional semantic detail over the 100% schema coverage, warranting the baseline score.

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 'Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router' and explicitly scopes it as 'same 5,724 tools, same arguments, same response shape', clearly identifying the resource and its function. It also distinguishes this tool from the stable ask_pipeworx by its experimental, beta nature.

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?

It provides a direct conditional: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It names the stable alternative and explains that results are compared against it, giving an agent clear criteria for selecting this tool over its sibling.

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

All Arcgis Branson 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

All 33 tools have clearly distinct purposes, even those that seem related like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research are well-differentiated by use case and behavior. Memory tools (remember/recall/forget) and subscription tools (subscribe/unsubscribe/list_subscriptions/recent_alerts) are similarly distinct.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools use snake_case, but naming patterns are mixed: some are single verbs (forget, recall), some verb_noun (query_layer, search_datasets), some noun_noun (entity_profile, layer_info), and some longer phrases (polymarket_kalshi_spread, scan_competitor_ai_presence). While readable, the inconsistency makes the set feel less coherent.

Tool Count2/5

With 33 tools, the surface is overly broad for a server named after a specific ArcGIS dataset. Many tools are unrelated to the core purpose (e.g., polymarket tools, npm scanning, AI visibility), making the count feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

For the stated ArcGIS Branson focus, only 3 tools (search_datasets, query_layer, layer_info) are relevant, offering only read access. The rest are a miscellaneous collection from the Pipeworx ecosystem and other domains, leaving obvious gaps in GIS functionality and no write or analysis capabilities.

Resources