Skip to main content
Glama

Conspiracy Theory

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: it discloses that answers are extracted only from tool results, describes the exact success and refusal response shapes, enumerates refusal reasons, and notes the extra LLM call cost. This is especially valuable because there is no output schema. No contradiction with the annotations exists.

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: purpose is front-loaded, use cases are explicit, return/refusal formats are compactly specified, and the cost tradeoff is included. Despite its length, it avoids fluff and is well-structured for agent consumption.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description fully compensates by specifying both success and refusal payloads, including refusal reason values. It also covers the routing mechanism, grounding guarantee, and cost consideration. For a tool with this complexity, the description is remarkably complete.

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 and its aliases. The description adds no additional parameter-level meaning beyond confirming that the tool fills arguments internally, which is a reasonable baseline given the high 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads'. It clearly distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx by emphasizing grounded extraction and refusal behavior, and the name 'grounded' is amplified with concrete details. An agent can immediately understand what this tool does and how it differs from siblings.

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 explicitly says when to use this tool ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on...') and when not to ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'), including the cost tradeoff ('Costs one extra LLM call'). This is strong, actionable routing guidance.

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

All Conspiracy Theory 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 heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve route/discover/research data needs, with ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly noted as currently identical to ask_pipeworx. Polymarket tools also blur together (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk), and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence are near-duplicates. An agent would frequently need to read long descriptions just to pick between near-equivalent entry points.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set is mostly snake_case and generally readable, with clear verbs like list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, generate_llms_txt, and validate_claim. However, conventions are mixed: brand-prefixed nouns appear (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending), one tool reverses the pattern (conspiracy_theory_generate vs generate_llms_txt), and the ask_pipeworx family follows its own scheme. The inconsistency is noticeable but does not make the names unreadable.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is heavy, and the apparent scope is a scattered mix of general data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, npm dependency checks, and conspiracy-theory generation. Many tools are meta-routers or aggregators that could be consolidated (e.g., the ask_pipeworx family, the polymarket family, the entity-research tools). The count feels like a growing internal toolkit rather than a deliberately scoped server.

Completeness2/5

The tools cover some complete sub-domains — memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/unsubscribe/list/recent_alerts, and data lookup has multiple verification and research paths. But the server's nominal 'Conspiracy Theory' purpose is essentially one generation tool with no save, share, history, or validation workflow, while the bulk of the surface is unrelated general-purpose data tooling. The overall offering is broad but not coherently complete for any clear stated purpose.

Resources