Skip to main content
Glama

Data Cambridge

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Ask Pipeworx Beta

ask_pipeworx_beta
Read-onlyIdempotent

Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router (same 5,743 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.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already establish read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds valuable context beyond that: beta routing candidates are toggled live, none is currently active, the tool currently matches ask_pipeworx, and there is no fallback to another router. This fully explains the experimental nature and current behavior.

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 moderately detailed but every sentence adds information: beta status, identical scope, current experimental state, use instructions, and no-fallback clarification. It is slightly longer than strictly necessary but not wasteful.

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?

For a single-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is complete: it states what the tool is, how to use it, what it currently does, how it compares to the stable sibling, and that it is a fully working router. An agent has enough context to select and invoke it 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 description coverage is 100%, and the schema itself fully documents the question parameter plus all five aliases. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, but the baseline of 3 is appropriate because the schema carries the 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 the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx and as an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from siblings by naming ask_pipeworx and explaining the experimental routing difference.

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 tells the agent to use this tool exactly like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired, and it names the stable alternative. It also clarifies the current state (no active candidate) and that results are compared against the stable router, giving concrete selection guidance.

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

All Data Cambridge 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

Most clusters have clear roles, and the detailed routing guidance separates ask_pipeworx from deep_research and grounded mode. However, three ask_pipeworx variants (one currently identical to stable), plus overlapping opportunity-discovery tools (polymarket_edges vs bet_research) and discovery/onboarding tools (discover_tools vs suggest_questions), leave several boundary cases where an agent could select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Many tools group under readable prefixes (ask_pipeworx, cambridge_, polymarket_, pipeworx_) and are mostly snake_case. But the set mixes bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), verb_noun actions (resolve_entity, validate_claim), and noun-phrase names (entity_profile, recent_changes, polymarket_fill_risk), so no single convention predicts the full API.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well into the 'too many' band, and the count is inflated by a kitchen-sink mix of data querying, prediction-market analysis, memory, subscriptions, feedback, llms.txt generation, and npm scanning. The server name 'Data Cambridge' suggests a narrow local-data scope, which makes the sprawl look even less appropriate.

Completeness3/5

Individual verticals are fairly complete: query/grounded/beta router levels, entity resolution/profile/compare/change, prediction-market discovery through fill-risk, and full memory and subscription CRUD. The major gap is discover_tools, which returns tools promoted as ready to call directly but no generic invocation tool is exposed, so the agent must route back through ask_pipeworx.

Resources