Skip to main content
Glama

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 6,474 across 1685 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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover safety (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: the exact success payload shape, the enumerated refusal_reason values, and the cost tradeoff ('Costs one extra LLM call vs ask_pipeworx'). This is exactly the extra behavioral disclosure annotations cannot carry.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the core purpose and refusal contract, and every clause carries signal. It is dense and slightly run-on as a single paragraph, but there is little wasted text; a small trim would make it a 5.

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 return contract (answer, evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, refusal_reason) and every refusal variant, which is what an agent needs to branch on results. Given the 8-alias schema and annotation coverage, nothing material 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% — all 8 params are alias strings each documented as 'Alias for question.' The description adds no parameter meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline 3 for full coverage applies. Nothing here is misleading, but nothing is added either.

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 for high-stakes reads') and its mechanism ('same routing as ask_pipeworx ... then EXTRACTS the answer using ONLY what the tool result contains'). It explicitly differentiates itself from the sibling ask_pipeworx, so an agent can distinguish the two without opening either schema.

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?

'Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts' names the positive case with concrete examples, and 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups' names the alternative and the condition selecting it. Both when-to-use and when-not are explicit.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.