Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Peoria

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Ask Pipeworx Beta

ask_pipeworx_beta
Read-onlyIdempotent

Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router (same 5,738 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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even with annotations already covering read-only and non-destructive behavior, the description adds valuable behavioral detail: candidate routing improvements are only active when under test, none is active currently, and it is a fully working router with no fallback. This clarifies that 'beta' means experimental parity, not a broken or partial tool.

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 tool's identity and purpose, and every sentence earns its place. There is minor redundancy between 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly' and 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx,' but it is not wasteful.

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 description covers how to invoke it, its current experimental state, parity with ask_pipeworx, and the absence of a fallback. There is no output schema, but referencing 'same response shape' as a known sibling is acceptable context for an agent selecting and calling the tool.

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 provides 100% coverage, documenting the required question parameter and all five aliases with descriptions. The tool description adds no new parameter-level meaning beyond saying 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which is enough 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 clearly identifies this as the beta variant of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with 5,724 tools and identical arguments/response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by emphasizing its experimental routing edge, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool is.

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?

It explicitly says to use it 'exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It does not explicitly state 'do not use for production' but the beta/experimental framing implies the boundary.

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

All Arcgis Peoria 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
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools are very similar (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and serve the same purpose with slight variations, making it hard for an agent to choose correctly. Additionally, the tool set mixes completely unrelated domains (ArcGIS geospatial vs. Pipeworx/Polymarket data), further confusing the purpose of each tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow multiple conventions: ask_pipeworx uses snake_case, while layer_info and query_layer use snake_case as well but with a different pattern. There is no consistent verb_noun pattern across the set; some are descriptive (validate_claim) while others are vague (process, run). The mix of conventions and lack of a unified naming scheme hurts predictability.

Tool Count1/5

At 34 tools, the count is excessive for a server supposedly focused on ArcGIS Peoria. Only 3 tools (layer_info, query_layer, search_datasets) are actually related to geospatial data, while the other 31 are from external services (Pipeworx, Polymarket). This mismatch suggests the server is extremely poorly scoped.

Completeness1/5

For a geospatial server, the tool set is severely incomplete. It lacks basic GIS operations like spatial filtering, editing, or analysis. The three geospatial tools only provide schema discovery and simple attribute queries. Meanwhile, the bulk of the tools cover a completely different domain (data lookup, prediction markets), leaving the core domain almost entirely unaddressed.

Resources