Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Kansas

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only convey read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive traits. The description adds substantial behavioral context: refusal modes with exact refusal_reason values, verbatim evidence extraction, return shape, fetched_at, one extra LLM call cost, and strict no-invention behavior. This goes well beyond the 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?

Dense but well-organized: purpose first, then behavior/return/refusal contract, then usage guidance and cost tradeoff. Every sentence carries decision-relevant information; the routing scale detail supports the grounding claim without being filler.

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?

Complete for an agent to invoke correctly: it explains success and refusal return shapes, refusal reasons, when the tool is appropriate, when to prefer the cheaper sibling, and the cost tradeoff. With no output schema, the explicit return contract fills the gap; annotations cover safety and idempotency.

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 coverage is 100% and thoroughly documents the question parameter plus its five aliases, so the description does not need to repeat parameter details. The description does reinforce that the question drives tool selection and grounding, but adds little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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, differentiated purpose: a hallucination-resistant answer mode that extracts answers only from fetched tool results, distinct from sibling ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta. The description names the routing behavior, grounding constraint, and output contract, making the tool's role unmistakable.

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?

Explicitly says when to use this tool ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on... must not invent facts') and when not to ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups') because of the extra LLM call cost. This gives clear selection criteria against sibling tools.

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

All Arcgis Kansas 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded all route questions; polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker all deal with prediction market edges). The inclusion of memory tools (remember, recall, forget) alongside research tools further blurs boundaries.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: some tools use snake_case (ai_visibility_check), some use underscores with prefixes (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_arbitrage), and others are more generic (query_layer, layer_info). There is no consistent pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the set is overly large for a geospatial server; most tools are unrelated to ArcGIS Kansas (e.g., prediction market tools, general research tools). Only 3 tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) are pertinent, making the count excessive and unfocused.

Completeness1/5

The server claims to be an ArcGIS Kansas tool but provides only basic layer querying and dataset search. Missing essential GIS operations such as editing, spatial analysis, or advanced queries, making it severely incomplete for its stated purpose.

Resources