Skip to main content
Glama

Bookbrainz

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Ask Pipeworx Beta

ask_pipeworx_beta
Read-onlyIdempotent

Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router (same 5,798 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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description reveals important behavioral traits beyond the annotations: live candidate routing improvements, the current inactive-candidate state, no fallback, and the assurance that this is a full working router. This gives an agent a realistic picture of possible behavior changes without contradicting the read-only/idempotent hints.

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?

Every sentence carries distinct information: identity, current state, usage instruction, comparison purpose, and no-fallback guarantee. The description is dense but not redundant, and it front-loads the most important identity and behavior details.

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 identity, current state, usage, and behavioral caveats well. It does not independently describe the response format, though it points to 'same response shape' as ask_pipeworx, which is sufficient if the agent can reference that sibling 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 has 100% coverage, documenting the question parameter and all aliases. The description only says 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx, which adds no parameter-level meaning beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline score of 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?

The description clearly identifies ask_pipeworx_beta as a beta universal router with the same toolset, arguments, and response shape as ask_pipeworx. This conveys the core ask-and-route function and distinguishes it from the stable sibling by its experimental status and current matching behavior.

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 explicitly says to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired and notes that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. This provides an actionable selection rule and names the alternative without leaving the choice to inference.

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

All Bookbrainz 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
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set mixes three distinct domains: BookBrainz entity access (browse, lookup, search), Pipeworx data routing (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions), and Polymarket betting analysis. Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, particularly the ask_pipeworx variants and the various polymarket_* tools, which an agent could easily confuse.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names follow a readable snake_case convention. While some are single verbs (browse, lookup, search), others use compound patterns (ask_pipeworx_grounded, polymarket_edge_tracker, pipeworx_trending), and there are a few noun-first names (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback, recent_changes). The inconsistency is minor and does not hinder readability.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, this is a large surface for a server named Bookbrainz, yet only 3 tools (browse, lookup, search) actually serve that domain. The remaining 31 tools are unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket functionality, making the tool count inappropriate for the stated server purpose and suggesting a mislabeled or overloaded server.

Completeness2/5

The BookBrainz domain is severely incomplete: it offers read-only access (search, browse, lookup) but no create, update, or delete operations for entities. For the broader Pipeworx/Polymarket functionality, coverage is quite deep, but that is not the server's stated domain. This leaves a fundamental gap for the BookBrainz use case.

Resources