Skip to main content
Glama

Expression Atlas

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 annotations, the description fully discloses the refusal behavior with concrete refusal_reason values, the exact success response shape, the extraction-only-from-source constraint, and the extra cost. This goes well beyond what annotations alone communicate and does not contradict readOnlyHint or idempotentHint.

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 carries essential selection or invocation information. The opening phrase immediately signals the tool's core purpose and risk profile, and the refusal_reason list, while lengthy, is necessary for correct handling of non-answer cases.

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?

The description provides enough context for correct invocation and interpretation: success shape, refusal shape, cost tradeoff, use cases, and relationship to ask_pipeworx. Even without an output schema, an agent knows what to expect and when to pick an alternative.

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?

The schema already documents all six parameters at 100% coverage, including the question field and its aliases. The description does not add further parameter-level detail, but given the high schema coverage this is acceptable and no compensation is required.

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 behavior: a hallucination-resistant answer mode that extracts answers only from tool results. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling ask_pipeworx by emphasizing grounded extraction, evidence, and refusal handling.

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?

It explicitly says when to use this tool: high-stakes reads where the answer may be quoted, cited, or acted on. It also gives a direct exclusion, instructing agents to prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups, and discloses the extra LLM call cost as a tradeoff.

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

All Expression Atlas 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
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., multiple Polymarket tools, multiple company information tools), but descriptions help distinguish them. However, the variety of domains (brand monitoring, betting, package scanning, memory, etc.) can confuse an agent.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names have no consistent naming pattern: some are verb_noun (validate_claim), some are noun_verb (bet_research), some are compound (ai_visibility_check), and some are single word (forget). This makes it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

28 tools is high, and the set spans many unrelated domains (brand visibility, SEC/FDA data, Polymarket, npm packages, memory, etc.) while the server is named 'Expression Atlas' with only 2 tools related to that purpose. The tool count feels excessive and unfocused.

Completeness1/5

For a server named 'Expression Atlas', only two tools (get_experiment, search_experiments) cover the domain. There are no tools for submitting, updating, or deleting experiments, nor any for data visualization. The surface is severely incomplete.

Resources