Skip to main content
Glama

Excuse

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Excuse Generate

excuse_generate
Read-onlyIdempotent

Generate an excuse for a given situation (late/missed_deadline/ghosted), tailored to the target audience (boss/friend/date/recruiter/professor/client) and quality tier (implausible/plausible/airtight/medical). Returns ready-to-use excuse text.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
audienceNo
situationYes
excuse_qualityNo
times_used_beforeNoHow many times you have used this excuse before

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
excuseYesThe generated excuse text

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added
  2. Removed
  3. First observed

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior3/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, covering the safety profile. The description adds the behavior of returning ready-to-use text, but does not disclose other behavioral traits such as whether the excuse is generated deterministically or how it might change based on the 'times_used_before' parameter. The description does not contradict any annotations.

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 a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the primary action (generate an excuse) and then enumerates the key inputs and output. Every word contributes meaning, with no redundancy or filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, 3 enums, output text), the description covers the core purpose, inputs, and output. The schema provides examples and a description for 'times_used_before,' and annotations cover the safety profile. However, the description doesn't mention potential limitations or circumstances where the output might be inappropriate, leaving a slight gap in completeness.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The schema covers only 25% of parameters with descriptions, but the description compensates by listing the allowed enum values for situation, audience, and excuse_quality. It does not explain the effect of 'times_used_before,' though the schema does. This adds meaningful context beyond the schema, making the parameters more understandable.

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 states the tool generates excuses, identifies the key inputs (situation, audience, quality tier), and notes the output is ready-to-use excuse text. It uses specific verbs and enumerates the resource types, making the purpose unambiguous and distinct from sibling tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides clear context on when to use the tool: when an excuse is needed for a given situation, tailored to audience and quality. It does not explicitly mention alternatives or exclusions, but no direct competing tools exist among siblings, so the usage is evident. It lacks explicit 'when not to use' guidance, preventing a 5.

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

All Excuse 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim) all route to the same underlying 5,708-tool catalog with subtle behavioral differences that are easy to misselect. Entity-focused tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, scan_competitor_ai_presence) also overlap heavily in the data they return, making boundaries fuzzy.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but the word-order convention is mixed: verb-first (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, discover_tools) coexists with noun-first (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage, recent_changes). The inconsistent reversal in excuse_generate versus generate_llms_txt further breaks the predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

At 32 tools the set is well past the well-scoped range, and several entries feel like padding: ask_pipeworx_beta duplicates ask_pipeworx, while the seven Polymarket tools and five company-intelligence tools could each be consolidated into fewer distinct capabilities. The broad scope justifies a large surface, but this count makes the server difficult to navigate.

Completeness3/5

The core data-lookup lifecycle (resolve, fetch, ground, validate, research, compare) is well covered, and memory/subscription features round it out. Obvious gaps include no direct tool to read a pipeworx:// citation URI (despite deep_research referencing one), and the excuse_generate tool is an isolated one-off with no supporting tools in its domain.

Resources