Skip to main content
Glama

Ask Pipeworx Beta

ask_pipeworx_beta
Read-onlyIdempotent

Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router (same 7,204 tools, same arguments, same response shape) with candidate routing improvements enabled live whenever one is under test. No candidate is active right now (the last was retired on outcome evidence 2026-07-26), so this currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing; results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges. Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router, just the experimental edge.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "question": "What is the current US unemployment rate?"
    },
    "name": "ask_pipeworx_beta"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoAlias for question.
askNoAlias for question.
textNoAlias for question.
inputNoAlias for question.
packsNoOPTIONAL. Restrict routing to these pack slugs (e.g. ["sec-form-d","sec-13f"]) — the router then picks only from tools in those packs. Omit for the default full-catalog routing. Slugs come from list_packs / search_packs / https://pipeworx.io/directory; unlisted or unknown slugs are ignored and named in _meta.pack_scope.ignored, and if none of them resolves the question is routed across the whole catalog with _meta.pack_scope.full_catalog:true (never an empty answer).
queryNoAlias for question.
promptNoAlias for question.
messageNoAlias for question.
questionYesYour question or request in natural language. Accepts query, q, prompt, text, input, ask, message as aliases.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed5 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
      +  {
      +    "question": "What is the current US unemployment rate?"
      +  }
      +]
    • addedInput schema / properties / ask
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Alias for question.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / message
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "Alias for question.",
      +  "type": "string"
      +}
    • addedInput schema / properties / packs
      Added value: +{
      +  "description": "OPTIONAL. Restrict routing to these pack slugs (e.g. [\"sec-form-d\",\"sec-13f\"]) — the router then picks only from tools in those packs. Omit for the default full-catalog routing. Slugs come from list_packs / search_packs / https://pipeworx.io/directory; unlisted or unknown slugs are ignored and named in _meta.pack_scope.ignored, and if none of them resolves the question is routed across the whole catalog with _meta.pack_scope.full_catalog:true (never an empty answer).",
      +  "items": {
      +    "type": "string"
      +  },
      +  "type": "array"
      +}
    • changedInput schema / properties / question / description
      Previous value: -"Your question or request in natural language. Accepts query, q, prompt, text, input as aliases."New value: +"Your question or request in natural language. Accepts query, q, prompt, text, input, ask, message as aliases."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive, open-world), so the description adds real behavioral context: candidate routing flips live while under test, results feed merge decisions, and there is no fallback because this IS a full router. Remaining gap is that it does not say whether outputs can differ from ask_pipeworx for the same question during a test, which is the key risk an agent cares about.

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?

Front-loads the identity/relationship to ask_pipeworx, then state, then usage, then the no-fallback clarification. Mostly earns its words, though the parenthetical last-candidate retirement date is detail an agent rarely needs at selection time.

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?

For a no-output-schema router with fully documented params, the description covers what changes versus the stable sibling, the current equality state, and the no-fallback property. It could be more complete by clarifying whether repeated identical questions may route differently, but nothing essential for calling it is missing.

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%, with all eight aliases plus 'packs' fully documented in the schema (including pack-scope fallback behavior and _meta fields). The description adds nothing about parameters beyond 'same arguments,' so baseline 3 applies.

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?

States a specific verb+resource and scope: a beta universal router over the same 7,204 tools as ask_pipeworx, with candidate routing enabled during tests. It explicitly distinguishes itself from its sibling ask_pipeworx by naming it and describing the delta (experimental routing edge vs stable router).

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?

Gives a clear selection rule: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' and notes results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. It does not state an explicit condition for preferring the stable ask_pipeworx (e.g. production/reproducibility), and the current 'no candidate active' state makes the routing choice moot without saying which to default to.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.