Skip to main content
Glama

Easypost

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: it extracts answers using ONLY tool result contents, returns a structured success response with verbatim evidence, and returns explicit refusals with enumerated reasons. It also reveals the extra-LLM-call cost, which the annotations do not convey.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose before moving to behavior, return format, use cases, and tradeoffs. Every sentence adds useful information, though it is longer than the minimal necessary and could be tightened slightly.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description fully compensates by specifying the exact success shape and all refusal reasons. It also covers practical usage context, cost implications, and when to choose the sibling tool, making the definition complete for an agent deciding whether and how to call it.

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%, so the schema already documents the `question` parameter and its aliases fully. The description does not add meaning beyond the schema; it focuses on the tool's behavior rather than parameter semantics. Baseline 3 is appropriate here.

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 'hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads', specifying a distinct behavior from its sibling ask_pipeworx. It names the resource ('Pipeworx') and the exact mode ('grounded'), making the tool's purpose unambiguous.

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 gives explicit guidance: use it 'whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on' and the agent must not invent facts. It also directly says to 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups', naming the alternative and the tradeoff (one extra LLM call).

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

All Easypost 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The ask_pipeworx family (stable, beta, grounded) are nearly identical, with beta explicitly matching stable, creating clear misselection risk. The five polymarket_* tools and several research tools (deep_research, bet_research, entity_profile) also overlap in purpose despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are mostly snake_case and readable, with consistent prefixes (ask_pipeworx_, polymarket_, easypost_), but mix verb-first (validate_claim, resolve_entity) and noun-first (entity_profile, ai_visibility_check) conventions. The server name 'Easypost' does not align with the overwhelmingly Pipeworx-focused tool set.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is a heavy count, especially with three near-duplicate ask_pipeworx variants and many meta-tools. The set is also unfocused: only two shipping tools under an 'Easypost' label while the rest are a broad data-research and prediction-market platform, making the count feel bloated for the apparent scope.

Completeness2/5

As an Easypost server, shipping coverage is severely incomplete (rates and tracking only, no label purchase, address verification, or refunds). Within the Pipeworx tools, the cited pipeworx:// URIs have no direct fetch-by-URI tool, leaving a notable dead end for agents trying to retrieve full records.

Resources