Skip to main content
Glama

Huggingface

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 the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses refusal behavior, the exact success and refusal return shapes, the possible refusal reasons, and the extra-cost tradeoff. This gives an agent a clear model of what will happen and what can go wrong.

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 every sentence earns its place: it gives the mechanism, the success/refusal contract, when to use it, and the cost relative to the sibling. The most important distinguishing trait — grounded extraction — is front-loaded in the first sentence.

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 specifies both success and refusal return shapes, including a reason enum. It covers routing, argument-filling, source scope, cost, and usage rationale. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret this tool is left ambiguous.

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 single real parameter 'question' is already well-explained with aliases and natural-language semantics. The description adds behavioral context about routing and grounded extraction but no additional parameter meaning, 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 states a specific verb and resource: it is a grounded, hallucination-resistant answering mode that routes through the same 5,798-tool Pipeworx system but extracts answers only from tool results. It explicitly contrasts itself with ask_pipeworx, so an agent can distinguish it from the primary sibling.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on' and lists high-stakes domains. It also names the alternative, ask_pipeworx, and says to prefer it for casual lookups because of the extra LLM call — making the selection criteria concrete.

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

All Huggingface 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The tool set includes many similarly-named tools, especially the 'ask_pipeworx' variants and the multiple polymarket tools, which could cause confusion. However, each tool has a detailed description specifying its unique purpose, so an agent reading carefully can distinguish them.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent across the set: Huggingface tools use 'get_', 'list_', 'search_' prefixes, while Pipeworx tools use varied verbs like 'ask_pipeworx', 'bet_research', 'entity_profile', and others. There is no overall pattern or convention, making it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

With 41 tools, the server is heavily loaded. While each tool has a distinct role, the scope combines two large domains (Huggingface and Pipeworx), leading to a tool count well above the typical 3-15 range for a focused server.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a wide range of functionalities: Huggingface model/dataset queries, Pipeworx data lookups, subscription management, and memory tools. However, it lacks write operations for Huggingface (e.g., uploading models/datasets) and some lifecycle operations, leaving noticeable gaps.

Resources