Skip to main content
Glama

Findymail

by io.github.pipeworx-io

What Can I Ask Pipeworx?

suggest_questions
Read-onlyIdempotent

What can I ask Pipeworx? / what is Pipeworx good for? / what can you do? / give me ideas / show me examples / getting started / what data do you have? — the onboarding entry point for an agent that just connected and wants to know what is worth asking. Returns category-bucketed example questions (company financials, drugs & clinical trials, economics, real estate, prediction markets, weather, government & patents, science & academia, news) — each with the exact tool + argument shape that answers it, drawn from the live catalog of thousands of tools. Call with no arguments for the full spread, or pass topic (e.g. "finance", "pharma", "betting") to focus. Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you, or to learn how to call the meta-tools (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, compare_entities, etc.).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicNoOptional focus area: finance | pharma | economics | real-estate | betting | weather | government | science | news. Omit for a cross-category spread.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. 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=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds context that it is safe and returns example questions, not performing any mutations. No contradiction.

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?

The description is relatively long but front-loaded with purpose and includes necessary details. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more structured.

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?

Given no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned (category-bucketed example questions with tool calls). Covers parameter, usage context, and outcome. Complete for an onboarding tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, baseline 3. The description adds value by listing the topic options and explaining the effect of omitting it. This goes beyond the schema's brief description.

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 is the onboarding entry point, returning category-bucketed example questions with exact tool calls. It uses specific verbs ('returns') and distinguishes from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx and discover_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?

Explicitly says 'Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you'. It also explains how to call with/without the topic parameter. Does not explicitly state when not to use, but context with siblings is clear.

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

All Findymail 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

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, deep_research/validate_claim/ask_pipeworx all route factual questions to the same underlying catalog, and ai_visibility_check is essentially wrapped by scan_competitor_ai_presence. The long descriptions help, but the boundaries between query, research, and verification tools are genuinely ambiguous.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names are all lowercase snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun or domain pattern: ask_pipeworx, findymail_find_email, scan_competitor_ai_presence, polymarket_kalshi_spread, and generate_llms_txt each use a different structural convention. The mix of brand prefixes, domain prefixes, and bare commands makes the naming feel ad hoc rather than systematic.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well over the 25+ threshold and reflects a server that bundles at least five distinct concerns: email lookup, structured data research, prediction-market analysis, subscriptions, and memory. Most individual tools earn their place, but the count is too high for coherent tool selection in a single MCP server.

Completeness3/5

Coverage is broad and mostly self-sufficient for the Pipeworx data ecosystem: querying, deep research, entity resolution, comparisons, verification, subscriptions, memory, and one-off utilities are all present. There are notable gaps though—there is no tool to fetch a full record from a returned pipeworx:// citation URI, and the Findymail side is limited to find/reverse with no verification or bulk capability.

Resources