Skip to main content
Glama

Gong

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 5,798 across 1517 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.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond them: it will only answer from tool contents, returns verbatim evidence, and explicitly refusals with structured reasons when it cannot answer. This fully discloses the refusal behavior and output guarantees.

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 dense but every sentence adds value: mode, routing, grounding behavior, refusal semantics, use cases, and cost trade-off. It is somewhat long, but the content is appropriately front-loaded with the core value proposition and refusal reasons.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully explains the return shape for both success and refusal paths, including all refusal_reason values. It also covers when to use the tool, how it differs from sibling tools, and the single input parameter. Nothing needed to call it correctly 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%, and the schema fully documents the single meaningful input ('Your question in natural language') including all aliases. The description does not need to repeat parameter details, so 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 grounded, hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads, with a specific verb and resource ('answers by extracting only from tool results'). It also distinguishes itself from the sibling ask_pipeworx by naming the same routing and the extra verification step.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and facts must not be invented. It also gives a clear when-not-to-use directive ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups') and discloses the extra LLM call cost.

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

All Gong 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes due to detailed descriptions, but there is potential confusion among the many Polymarket and pipeworx-related tools. The Gong-specific tools are clearly separated.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming conventions are mixed: some use snake_case, others camelCase, and there is inconsistency between groups (e.g., gong_* vs. polymarket_*). However, within each subgroup, naming is consistent.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is high for coherence. The server covers multiple domains (Gong calls, data research, betting), leading to an overloaded toolset that could be streamlined into fewer, more general tools.

Completeness4/5

The toolset is comprehensive for its intended use cases, covering Gong call management, a wide array of data lookups, and Polymarket betting analysis. Minor gaps exist, such as limited CRM features beyond calls.

Resources