Skip to main content
Glama

Faa Regulations

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?

The description goes well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing that answers are strictly grounded in tool results, that refusals are explicit with enumerated reasons, and that the tool has an additional cost relative to ask_pipeworx. There is no contradiction with 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 dense but every sentence adds value: purpose, routing behavior, return contract, refusal reasons, use cases, and cost comparison. It is front-loaded with the core differentiator 'hallucination-resistant answer mode' and remains well organized.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description specifies the exact success response shape, the refusal response shape, refusal reason enums, evidence requirements, and routing logic. An agent has enough context to invoke the tool and interpret its results 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 description coverage is 100%, so the parameter semantics are already fully documented in the schema. The description wisely focuses on behavior rather than repeating parameter details, and it adds no parameter-specific guidance, which is acceptable given the baseline for high coverage.

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' and explains that it extracts answers using only the tool result. It also distinguishes it from ask_pipeworx by describing its evidence and refusal behavior, so an agent can differentiate it from siblings.

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 the tool ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on... must not invent facts') and when to prefer the alternative ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'). It even includes the trade-off of an extra LLM call, making the routing decision fully transparent.

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

All Faa Regulations 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

Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same 5,714-tool catalog with heavily overlapping purposes, and ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx. Similarly, bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, and polymarket_fill_risk all target prediction-market analysis and could easily be confused by an agent. The two FAA tools (faa_regulation, faa_search) are distinct, but they are buried among a dozen unrelated data-lookup and memory tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun or noun_verb pattern (faa_search, resolve_entity, compare_entities, validate_claim, discover_tools, unsubscribe). Minor deviations exist, such as ask_pipeworx and pipeworx_feedback lacking underscores, and the polymarket_* family mixes noun-led names, but overall the naming is readable and predictable.

Tool Count1/5

33 tools for a server named 'Faa Regulations' is a severe mismatch: only 2 of the 33 tools (faa_regulation, faa_search) relate to FAA regulations, with the rest covering general data lookups, prediction markets, SEC filings, memory storage, npm dependency checking, and llms.txt generation. The count is far too high for the stated domain, and most tools do not belong in this server at all.

Completeness2/5

The actual FAA surface is thin: faa_search provides keyword lookup and faa_regulation returns full text or a part's section list, so basic citation-lookup workflows work, but there is no update/amendment tracking, no browse-by-part navigation beyond a section list, and no related aviation data such as NOTAMs or TFRs. The dominant Pipeworx tool family is unrelated to FAA regulations, so an agent using this server for its apparent purpose would hit dead ends quickly.

Resources