Skip to main content
Glama

Httpbin

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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 6,402 across 1674 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.
askNoAlias for question.
textNoAlias for question.
inputNoAlias for question.
queryNoAlias for question.
promptNoAlias for question.
messageNoAlias for question.
questionYesYour question in natural language. Accepts query, q, prompt, text, input, ask, message as aliases.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / ask
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Alias for question.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / message
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Alias for question.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / question / description
      Previous value: -"Your question in natural language. Accepts query, q, prompt, text, input as aliases."New value: +"Your question in natural language. Accepts query, q, prompt, text, input, ask, message as aliases."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "question": "What was Apple's fiscal 2023 revenue?"
+  }
+]
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses key behavioral traits beyond the readOnlyHint annotations: returns {answer, evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, refusal_reason:null} on success and an explicit refusal with enumerated refusal_reason values. It also reveals the extra LLM call cost and the data-truncation refusal path, both essential for high-stakes decision-making.

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?

Four dense sentences, each carrying distinct value: mode/purpose, mechanism, return/refusal contract, and usage guidance with cost tradeoff. The core purpose and sibling differentiation are front-loaded with no filler.

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 having no output schema, the description fully specifies the success and refusal return shapes, enumerates refusal reasons, and gives concrete invocation scenarios. Combined with rich annotations and a self-documenting input schema, an agent has everything needed to select and call it correctly.

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% and the single meaningful parameter, question, is documented as natural language with a full alias list. The description adds no parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, 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?

Description opens with 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' and immediately distinguishes from ask_pipeworx by noting the same routing but extract-only answering. It states the exact output contract and refusal semantics, so an agent can clearly identify this as the grounded variant.

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 facts must not be invented (financial verdicts, legal claims, medical lookups, public statements). It also gives the counter-condition: prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups, citing 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 Httpbin toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources