Skip to main content
Glama

Data Sncf

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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 6,739 across 1775 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.
askNoAlias for question.
textNoAlias for question.
inputNoAlias for question.
queryNoAlias for question.
promptNoAlias for question.
messageNoAlias for question.
questionYesYour question in natural language. Accepts query, q, prompt, text, input, ask, message as aliases.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "question": "What was Apple's fiscal 2023 revenue?"
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / ask
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Alias for question.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / message
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Alias for question.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / question / description
      Previous value: -"Your question in natural language. Accepts query, q, prompt, text, input as aliases."New value: +"Your question in natural language. Accepts query, q, prompt, text, input, ask, message as aliases."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare the safe-read profile (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, openWorld), and the description still adds a full behavioral contract: the extraction is constrained to 'ONLY what the tool result contains', the exact success payload, and an enumerated set of refusal outcomes (not_in_source, no_tool_match, tool_error, data_truncated, llm_error). Cost and refusal semantics are exactly the traits an agent cannot get from structured fields.

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?

Front-loaded with purpose, then routing, return contract, refusal modes, and usage guidance in a logical order with no filler sentences. The single mega-sentence carrying return/refusal detail is dense and heavy on parentheses, which costs a little readability.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description fully specifies the return shape and every refusal reason, and the parameter model is trivial (one question, seven aliases). An agent has everything needed to invoke it and interpret the result.

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?

All 8 parameters are covered at 100% by the schema, which itself documents each alias ('Alias for question'). The description never mentions parameters or the alias farm, so it adds no meaning beyond the schema; baseline 3 applies when the schema does the heavy lifting.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('hallucination-resistant answer mode', 'extracts the answer') and immediately names the sibling it is differentiated from ('Same routing as ask_pipeworx'). An agent can tell it apart from ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta and validate_claim without opening any schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on... financial verdicts, legal claims, medical lookups') and when-not ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'), plus the selecting cost tradeoff ('costs one extra LLM call'). Nothing is left to inference.

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

All Data Sncf toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources