Skip to main content
Glama

Greenhouse

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description discloses refusal behavior, exact success and refusal response shapes, the extra LLM call cost, and the guarantee that only source-contained data is used. This gives agents a strong mental model of expected behavior.

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 well-structured: behavior first, output contract second, usage guidance third. Every sentence adds functional value, and the critical use-case guidance is front-loaded before the cost trade-off.

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?

For a grounded-answer tool with no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: routing behavior, success and refusal formats, refusal reason enum, cost implications, and when to prefer the sibling. No critical operational detail 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 coverage is 100%, so the sole meaningful parameter ('question' with aliases) is already fully documented. The description adds no parameter-specific guidance, but the schema carries the burden sufficiently, making the baseline 3 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?

Description clearly states this is a hallucination-resistant, grounded answer mode that extracts answers using only tool result content. It distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx by naming the exact routing behavior and the strict evidence-based output contract.

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?

Description explicitly says when to use: when answers will be quoted, cited, or acted on and facts must not be invented. It also gives the alternative ask_pipeworx and a cost-based preference rule, so an agent can select between siblings confidently.

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

All Greenhouse 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but some overlap exists between research tools like ask_pipeworx, deep_research, and bet_research, which could confuse an agent. The Greenhouse-specific tools are clearly separated by the 'greenhouse_' prefix, aiding disambiguation.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names follow snake_case but vary in style: some have a prefix like 'greenhouse_' or 'pipeworx_', others do not (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs. deep_research). The verb-object pattern is inconsistent (e.g., 'generate_llms_txt' vs. 'entity_profile'), making naming less predictable.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a single server, especially one named 'Greenhouse' which implies an ATS focus. The set aggregates multiple domains (ATS, data research, memory, prediction markets) without clear scoping, overwhelming the agent and reducing coherence.

Completeness3/5

The Pipeworx/data research subset is fairly complete with lookups, comparisons, verification, and subscriptions. However, the Greenhouse ATS subset lacks create/update/delete operations, leaving notable gaps. The mixed domains make overall completeness uneven.

Resources