Skip to main content
Glama

Dockerhub

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.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses crucial behaviors: it never invents facts, extracts only from tool results, returns explicit refusal reasons, and costs an extra LLM call. The detailed success/refusal response shapes add substantial transparency.

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 efficient: it front-loads the core purpose, then gives routing context, return semantics, refusal reasons, use cases, and trade-offs. Every sentence adds useful information without verbosity.

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 covers return values on success and failure, refusal reasons, when to use, when not to use, and cost implications. An agent has everything needed to select and invoke this tool 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%, and the schema already documents the 'question' parameter and its aliases. The description does not add parameter-level meaning, but it does not need to because the schema is sufficient.

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 specific mode: a hallucination-resistant, grounded answer tool that routes like ask_pipeworx but extracts answers only from tool results. This distinguishes it from its sibling ask_pipeworx and makes its unique role obvious.

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 states when to use it ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts') and when not to ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'), including cost-based reasoning. This is ideal usage guidance.

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

All Dockerhub 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

Many tools overlap in purpose, e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile, and validate_claim all perform data lookups with subtle differences. Polymarket tools also have overlapping scopes. The large number of tools with similar functions creates confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are inconsistent: some use verb_noun (get_image, list_subscriptions), others are descriptive phrases (ai_visibility_check, bet_research), and some are single words (forget, recall). No clear pattern.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is high, and many are unrelated to Dockerhub. The server name suggests a focused Docker toolset, but the bulk of tools are for Pipeworx/Polymarket/data lookups, making the count excessive for the advertised domain.

Completeness2/5

As a Dockerhub server, it lacks basic Docker operations like push, delete, or manage repositories. As a general data toolset, it covers many domains but still misses some core operations (e.g., no tool for searching inside images).

Resources