Skip to main content
Glama

Csv

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 5,798 across 1517 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.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the exact success return shape, the refusal reasons, the constraint that answers come only from tool results, and the extra LLM call cost. No contradiction with 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: core behavior, routing, return and refusal contracts, use cases, and cost tradeoff. Key behavioral distinction is front-loaded before implementation details.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully compensates by enumerating the return fields and all refusal reasons. It also provides enough context about routing, failure modes, and when to prefer the sibling that an agent can decide and invoke correctly.

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%, with the single required parameter fully documented as 'Your question in natural language' plus aliases. The description adds no further parameter detail because the schema already carries that 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 opens with a specific verb phrase: 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads.' It clearly identifies the tool as an answer-producing mode that extracts only from fetched tool results and can return explicit refusals, distinguishing it from the sibling ask_pipeworx.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: whenever the answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts. It also names the alternative ask_pipeworx and states the tradeoff, preferring it 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 Csv 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools overlap in purpose: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx today, and the polymarket_* family plus bet_research all touch prediction-market analysis. The descriptions are extremely detailed and mostly disambiguate, but an agent must rely on very long text to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are almost all snake_case and readable, but the pattern is mixed: some are verb-first (resolve_entity, list_subscriptions), some noun-first (entity_profile, polymarket_edges), and some are one-word verbs (remember, forget). The ask_pipeworx_* and recent_* prefixes are consistent, but there is no single verb_noun convention throughout.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well over the 25+ threshold, especially for a server named 'Csv' that contains only two CSV-specific tools. The rest spans several unrelated domains: data research, prediction markets, subscriptions, memory, AI visibility, and package scanning. The set feels like multiple servers bundled together rather than one well-scoped surface.

Completeness4/5

As a broad data-research platform, coverage is strong: lookup, grounded answers, deep research, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, fact-checking, subscription lifecycle, and memory persistence are all present. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct fetch tool for pipeworx:// citation URIs and no subscription-update tool, but most workflows have no dead ends.

Resources