Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Maricopa

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 5,735 across 1498 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.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, and openWorld hints, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: it extracts answers strictly from tool results, returns a structured refusal with enumerated reasons, and notes the extra LLM call cost. This goes far beyond the annotations and helps the agent predict side effects and failure modes.

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: mode definition, routing mechanism, output contract, refusal reasons, use cases, and sibling comparison. It is front-loaded with the most important distinction ('Hallucination-resistant answer mode') and the rest flows logically.

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?

For a tool with a single natural-language question parameter and no output schema, the description fully defines the return shape, refusal semantics, cost implication, and ideal usage context. It also names the sibling and contrasts with it. Nothing material is missing for an agent to decide when and how to invoke it.

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%, with all six aliases clearly mapped to a natural-language question. The description does not add any parameter-level detail, but the schema fully covers parameter meaning. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 verb and resource ('Ask Pipeworx'), and immediately clarifies the mode ('Grounded') as hallucination-resistant answer extraction. It explicitly differentiates from the sibling ask_pipeworx by describing the same routing but distinct output behavior, and also hints at the high-stakes read use case.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: quoted/cited/acted-on answers where hallucination is unacceptable. It also gives a direct alternative ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups') and justifies it with the extra LLM call cost. This is exactly the kind of selection guidance an agent needs.

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

All Arcgis Maricopa 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap within the Pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded) and Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, etc.). Descriptions are detailed and help differentiate, but the sheer number of tools from different domains can cause an agent to select the wrong one for a given task.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is highly inconsistent: some tools follow verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), others are nouns (layer_info, entity_profile), and some have prefixes (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_arbitrage). There is no uniform pattern, making the set feel chaotic.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is far too many for a server named 'Arcgis Maricopa', which only has 3 GIS-specific tools. The remaining tools are from unrelated domains (polymarket betting, general Pipeworx queries, utilities), making the tool set bloated and unfocused for its stated purpose.

Completeness3/5

For the ArcGIS domain, the set is minimal (only search, schema, and query) and lacks management or analysis tools. However, the broader toolset covers many data domains (finance, drugs, prediction markets), but with gaps like no update/delete operations for the GIS data. The overall coverage is mixed.

Resources