Skip to main content
Glama

Devdocs Io

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 5,767 across 1506 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. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description goes beyond them by disclosing the refusal contract, the exact return structure, the evidence requirement, and the added cost. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 longer than average but every sentence carries functional information: purpose, routing, extraction guarantee, output shape, refusal reasons, use cases, and cost trade-off. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though it could be tightened slightly without losing value.

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 detailing the success shape, refusal reasons, and behavioral guarantees. It also covers routing, source scope, and when to prefer the sibling tool. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether to call this tool and what to expect is missing.

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% and the only meaningful parameter is a natural-language question with aliases. The description does not add much beyond the schema for the parameter itself, but the schema already fully documents it. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the description focuses on behavior rather than parameter details.

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 a distinct mode: a hallucination-resistant, grounded answer extractor that only uses tool results. It names the exact verb/resource ('ask_pipeworx_grounded') and differentiates it from ask_pipeworx by the extraction/refusal behavior. This makes sibling differentiation explicit.

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 states exactly when to use this tool: when an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on and the agent must not invent facts, with concrete examples. It also gives the alternative ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups') and the trade-off (one extra LLM call), providing strong routing guidance.

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

All Devdocs Io 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

There are many tools with overlapping purposes (e.g., multiple ways to ask questions, multiple Polymarket analysis tools, multiple company lookup tools). The detailed descriptions help distinguish them, but an agent could still easily select the wrong one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are inconsistent, mixing verb_noun patterns (ask_pipeworx, search_docs) with single words (db, docs) and compound names (polymarket_arbitrage, ai_visibility_check). No clear convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is excessive for a DevDocs documentation server; most tools are unrelated to documentation (Pipeworx data, memory, subscriptions). The core documentation functionality only requires about 7-8 tools, making the rest feel extraneous.

Completeness3/5

For the core DevDocs functionality, the tools cover listing, searching, and fetching documentation. However, the server includes many unrelated tools that are incomplete on their own (e.g., only some data lookups, no CRUD for prediction markets). Thus overall completeness is mediocre.

Resources