Skip to main content
Glama

Food Feeds

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (read-only, open-world, idempotent), the description reveals the extraction mechanism, return shape with evidence and confidence, and the full set of refusal reasons. This gives the agent a precise model of what to expect on both success and failure paths, including the inability to answer.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: purpose, mechanism, return schema, refusal reasons, usage policy, and cost. It is front-loaded with the core value proposition and structured logically, though slightly dense in the middle.

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 the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description compensates by fully specifying output structure, error/refusal behavior, and usage contexts. An agent has enough information to call this correctly and interpret any result, making the description comprehensive for its scope.

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 coverage is 100% with all parameters documented as aliases for 'question'. The description doesn't need to add parameter-level detail since the schema fully explains the input; however, it doesn't further illuminate how the question is processed or formatted, so the baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 this as a hallucination-resistant, grounded answer mode that routes to the right tool, fetches data, and extracts an answer strictly from tool results. It explicitly contrasts with ask_pipeworx, distinguishing the grounded variant from its sibling and making its unique role obvious.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts', and when not to: 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'. It also discloses the cost tradeoff, providing clear selection criteria against the sibling tool.

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

All Food Feeds 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping functionality (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and the set includes both food-specific feeds and general data tools without clear separation. Distinguishing between them, especially for an agent, would be difficult.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some are snake_case (list_feeds, read_feed), others are lowercase with underscores (ai_visibility_check), and many are multi-word without clear structure (polymarket_arbitrage, scan_dependency). This inconsistency makes it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

With 34 tools, the count is high, and most tools are unrelated to the server's stated purpose of 'Food Feeds'. The inclusion of general-purpose Pipeworx tools (e.g., deep_research, entity_profile, polymarket tools) makes the set bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

For the food feeds domain, only three tools (list_feeds, read_feed, fetch_feed) are relevant, which is incomplete. The server lacks tools for searching, subscribing, or managing feeds. The presence of many unrelated tools does not compensate for this gap.

Resources