Skip to main content
Glama

Kolada Se

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 5,743 across 1500 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?

Even though annotations already indicate readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive behavior, the description adds critical behavioral detail: it performs multi-step tool routing, returns either a grounded answer with evidence/confidence/fetched_at or an explicit refusal with a specific refusal_reason, and costs an extra LLM call versus ask_pipeworx. No contradiction with annotations.

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: purpose, mechanism, return shape, refusal semantics, use cases, and cost tradeoff. The most important distinction is front-loaded.

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?

For a complex tool with no output schema, the description fully compensates by enumerating the success response fields and the complete refusal_reason enum. It also states the cost, relationship to the sibling, and suitability criteria, leaving no material ambiguity for invocation.

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 all six parameters are clearly documented as aliases for a single natural-language question. The description does not add deeper parameter semantics, but it doesn't need to: there is only one semantic input and the schema already explains it well.

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 names a specific mode ('Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads'), a distinct behavior (extracts only from tool result), and explicitly frames how it differs from ask_pipeworx. This makes it immediately distinguishable from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta.

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 ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on'), cites high-stakes examples, and tells the agent when NOT to use it ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups') and why (extra LLM call cost). This is exemplary routing guidance.

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

All Kolada Se 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical when no routing candidate is active), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer factual questions through the same underlying router. The prediction-market cluster (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) has substantial purpose overlap that requires reading long descriptions to disambiguate.

Naming Consistency3/5

Mostly snake_case, and the pipeworx_/polymarket_/ask_ prefixes give some structure, but conventions are mixed: some tools are verb_noun (list_municipalities, get_data), some are bare verbs (forget, recall, remember), and some are noun phrases (entity_profile, deep_research, bet_research, recent_changes). The inconsistent prefixing across meta-tools (ask_, deep_, entity_, scan_, validate_) makes the surface feel less predictable than it could be.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is on the heavy side, but the bigger problem is that the server name 'Kolada Se' matches only 4 tools (search_kpi, list_municipalities, list_org_units, get_data), while the other 31 tools belong to unrelated domains (Pipeworx data routing, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility). This is a severe scope mismatch that makes the count feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

For the Kolada domain named by the server, the surface is minimal: you can search KPIs, list municipalities, list org units, and fetch single-KPI data, but there is no multi-year bulk fetch, cross-municipality comparison, or unit-level data retrieval. The broader Pipeworx/prediction-market surface is fairly feature-complete, but it is not what the server name implies, so the set as a whole leaves the apparent domain thinly covered.

Resources