Skip to main content
Glama

Htmltext

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 5,724 across 1497 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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: the refusal mechanism with concrete refusal_reason values, the constraint of using only tool result content, and the extra LLM call cost. This goes well beyond what annotations provide and fully discloses the tool's strict no-invention 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 front-loaded with the core value proposition, then systematically covers mechanism, output contract, use cases, and cost trade-off. Every sentence earns its place; the refusal reason enumeration is dense but highly useful and not redundant.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully specifies the success and refusal return shapes, the exact refusal reason enums, and usage boundaries. It also covers the cost implication and the alternative. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call this tool 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 already documents the 'question' parameter plus five aliases. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond the general purpose, but given the trivial single-parameter surface, the schema fully carries the semantic load. 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?

States a specific mode ('hallucination-resistant answer mode'), the exact mechanism (same routing as ask_pipeworx, then extracts from tool result only), and differentiates from sibling ask_pipeworx by the grounding guarantee. The return contract is stated explicitly, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 says when to use it ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on... financial verdicts, legal claims, medical lookups') and when not to ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'), even naming the alternative tool. Also discloses the cost trade-off of one extra LLM call, which is directly actionable guidance for tool selection.

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

All Htmltext 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools form overlapping clusters (ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded, the five polymarket_* tools, and discover_tools vs suggest_questions) that could cause misselection on first glance. The detailed descriptions mostly clarify the boundaries, but the overlaps are real and require careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming is overwhelmingly snake_case with a verb_noun pattern (ask_, extract_, generate_, list_, resolve_, subscribe), which is predictable. A few noun-style or special-form names (entity_profile, html_to_text, recent_changes, polymarket_edges) break the pattern, but these are minor deviations.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools the surface is heavy, especially for a server named 'Htmltext' where only 4 of 34 tools relate to HTML. Even accounting for the broad data/research domain, the set includes several redundant research and Polymarket helpers that push it past a well-scoped count.

Completeness4/5

The major subdomains are well covered: HTML extraction, entity/data research, prediction-market analysis, memory, and subscriptions all have the core operations needed with no obvious dead ends. Some niches are shallow (HTML lacks a general fetch/render tool; scan_dependency is a one-off), but agents can work around these gaps.

Resources