Skip to main content
Glama

Cbioportal

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 5,743 across 1500 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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description reveals important behavioral traits beyond annotations: it costs one extra LLM call, returns a structured success payload with evidence and confidence, and refuses with a specific refusal_reason when data doesn't directly answer. It also explains the tool's mechanism (routing, fetching, then extracting only from the result), which is not visible in annotations.

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 information-dense but every sentence contributes: it states the mode, the mechanism, the return/refusal contracts, the use cases, and the cost trade-off. It is slightly long but not wasteful given the complexity of the tool.

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?

The description is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly: it covers return values (important since no output schema exists), refusal behavior and reasons, use-case boundaries, comparison with a sibling, and the extra-cost consideration. No critical operational context is missing.

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%, and the schema already documents the question parameter with natural language semantics and aliases. The tool description does not add parameter-specific detail, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the full burden.

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 a specific verb and resource: it provides a hallucination-resistant 'answer mode' that extracts answers only from tool results, with explicit refusal behavior. It also explicitly contrasts with ask_pipeworx, making the tool easily distinguishable from its closest sibling.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: high-stakes reads, quoted/cited/acted-on answers, and domains where inventing facts is unacceptable (financial, legal, medical, public statements). It also recommends preferring ask_pipeworx for casual lookups, explicitly naming the alternative.

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

All Cbioportal 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but ask_pipeworx_beta is an intentional near-duplicate of ask_pipeworx, and several polymarket/entity tools overlap in scope. The descriptions do enough to disambiguate most pairs, but the duplicate beta routing tool introduces real ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but the pattern varies: verb_noun (get_gene, search_studies), noun_noun (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending), and product-prefixed verbs (ask_pipeworx, bet_research). There is no single consistent convention, though the names remain readable.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is a heavy surface, and the vast majority (31) are unrelated to cBioPortal; only four tools actually belong to the named domain. This makes the count inappropriate for a cancer-genomics MCP server, as the set is bloated with out-of-scope utilities.

Completeness1/5

For a cBioPortal server, only metadata-level tools exist (gene lookup, study details, cancer types, study search); core cBioPortal data access — mutations, copy-number alterations, clinical data, molecular profiles, sample-level queries — is entirely missing. The tool surface severely under-covers the named domain.

Resources