Skip to main content
Glama

Endoflife

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 5,743 across 1500 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 readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description reveals key behavior: extraction is limited to tool result content, success and refusal shapes are enumerated, and refusal reasons are listed. It also discloses the cost tradeoff, which is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations do not capture.

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 every sentence earns its place: purpose, mechanism, return/refusal contracts, usage triggers, and cost tradeoff. The most important differentiator is front-loaded, and later details are grouped logically.

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 present, the description fully compensates by specifying the success return object and the refusal object with enumerated reasons. It also covers routing behavior, cost, and sibling relationship, making the tool self-sufficient for correct invocation.

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 adds no extra parameter meaning beyond the natural-language question expectation, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies this as a 'hallucination-resistant answer mode' that performs routing and extraction, and explicitly contrasts it with ask_pipeworx. It makes the tool's role and its differentiation from the sibling 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 when-to-use guidance: high-stakes reads, quoted/cited/acted-on answers, and domains where fact invention is unacceptable. It also names ask_pipeworx as the preferred alternative for casual lookups and mentions the one-extra-LLM-call cost.

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

All Endoflife 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
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set mixes three near-identical ask_pipeworx variants, multiple overlapping prediction-market tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research), and three endoflife tools buried among 31 unrelated Pipeworx tools. This makes distinguishing between tools genuinely confusing, especially when several appear to route to the same underlying data.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names use lowercase snake_case, but the verb-noun pattern is inconsistent: some are verb_noun (list_products, get_product), others noun_noun (polymarket_edges, bet_research), and a few are bare verbs (recall, forget). The style is readable but does not follow a single predictable convention.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the count is far too high for a server named 'Endoflife'—only three tools actually relate to endoflife.date tracking. The remaining 31 tools belong to a separate Pipeworx platform, making the tool count an extreme over-scoping for the apparent purpose.

Completeness4/5

The endoflife subset is complete: list_products, get_product, and get_cycle cover the full lifecycle of discovering and retrieving release/support timelines with no dead ends. The broader Pipeworx toolkit also appears fairly comprehensive for its own domain, but the mixed set makes it hard to assess a single coherent surface.

Resources