Skip to main content
Glama

Isc Sans

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 5,738 across 1499 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 establish read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond those annotations: grounded extraction from tool results, a structured refusal mode with specific refusal_reason values, and the extra LLM call cost.

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 long but dense and front-loaded: the core guarantee appears first, followed by the return/refusal contract, then usage guidance and the cost trade-off. Every sentence earns its place and directly supports correct tool selection and invocation.

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 compensates by fully specifying the success response shape and the refusal response shape, including refusal reasons. It also names the sibling tool, explains routing behavior, and covers the cost consideration, leaving no call-critical information 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%, and the schema documents the 'question' parameter plus all aliases, so the description does not need to repeat parameter semantics. The description adds no direct parameter-level detail, which is acceptable because the schema already carries that burden fully.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource: a 'hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' that extracts answers only from tool results. It clearly distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx by the grounded extraction guarantee and the explicit refusal 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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool: whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on and the agent must not invent facts. It also names the alternative, ask_pipeworx, and gives the decisive trade-off — one extra LLM call — with a direct recommendation to prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups.

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

All Isc Sans 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 overlap in purpose (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim all handle factual queries), which could confuse an agent. However, detailed descriptions help differentiate them, so the confusion is moderate.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., resolve_entity, compare_entities). A few irregular verbs (forget, recall, remember) and diverse prefixes (pipeworx_, polymarket_) lower consistency slightly.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is high but each serves a distinct purpose within a broad domain (data querying, prediction markets, security, memory, etc.). The number feels slightly excessive for a single server, but not extreme.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers many aspects of data retrieval, prediction market analysis, and security checks. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated WHOIS or CVE lookup), but core workflows are well-supported.

Resources