Skip to main content
Glama

Companies House

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 5,724 across 1497 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 indicate read-only, idempotent behavior, but the description adds significant behavioral disclosure beyond them: the extraction constraint, exact refusal reasons, the extra LLM call cost, and the explicit success/refusal return contract. There is no contradiction with 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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: core behavior, return contract, usage context, and cost-based routing guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured so an agent can quickly determine whether to use this 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully specifies the success return shape, all refusal reasons, and the failure modes. It also covers cost, alternatives, and ideal use cases, making it complete for a complex agent-facing 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?

Schema coverage is 100%: the question parameter and all five aliases are documented. The description adds general context that the question is routed to other tools, but it does not add meaningful parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides. 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?

The description names a specific capability—grounded, hallucination-resistant answer extraction—clearly distinguishes it from sibling ask_pipeworx, and explains the constrained behavior: it uses ONLY the tool result. This makes its purpose and differentiation immediately evident.

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: whenever answers will be quoted, cited, or acted on and facts must not be invented. It also names the alternative, ask_pipeworx, and states the cost tradeoff, explicitly recommending the cheaper sibling for casual lookups.

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

All Companies House 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping jobs: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded is the same router with stricter extraction, and discover_tools/suggest_questions both serve discovery. Company-facing tools also overlap (entity_profile vs recent_changes vs compare_entities), so an agent could easily route a query to the wrong tool despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are mostly snake_case and grouped prefixes like get_*, ask_pipeworx*, and polymarket_* are readable. However, conventions are mixed across the set: some are verb_noun (search_companies), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, deep_research, recent_changes), and the Companies House family sits awkwardly beside unrelated Pipeworx and prediction-market families.

Tool Count1/5

With 36 tools, the server is already heavy, but only five tools actually serve the named Companies House domain. The other 31 belong to Pipeworx querying, memory, subscriptions, and Polymarket trading, which is a severe mismatch between the server's stated purpose and its actual surface.

Completeness3/5

For UK company data, the core surface is mostly covered: search, company profile, filings, officers, and PSCs. However, charges and official document retrieval are missing even though get_company links to them, and the unrelated tools do nothing to complete the Companies House domain.

Resources