Skip to main content
Glama

Lemmy

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Ask Pipeworx Beta

ask_pipeworx_beta
Read-onlyIdempotent

Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router (same 5,767 tools, same arguments, same response shape) with candidate routing improvements enabled live whenever one is under test. No candidate is active right now (the last was retired on outcome evidence 2026-07-26), so this currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing; results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges. Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router, just the experimental edge.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoAlias for question.
textNoAlias for question.
inputNoAlias for question.
queryNoAlias for question.
promptNoAlias for question.
questionYesYour question or request 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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description reveals live experimental behavior, that candidates may be enabled at any time, that none is currently active, and that there is no fallback—it is a full router. This adds meaningful context beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations without contradicting them.

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 sentences deliver the identity, equivalence scope, current experimental state, usage direction, and fallback behavior with no filler. Key information 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?

For a high-complexity universal router, the description covers identity, current behavior, usage, and a no-fallback guarantee; annotations cover safety and idempotence. The schema covers all invocation parameters, and the response shape is pinned as identical to ask_pipeworx, so nothing needed to call the tool correctly 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?

The input schema already describes all six parameters, including aliases, at 100% coverage. The description only repeats that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, which adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.

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 action ('ask'), the resource (Pipeworx), and immediately identifies this as the beta version of ask_pipeworx with identical behavior. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by explaining that it runs candidate routing improvements when under test, so an agent can tell it apart from ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly says to use this 'exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing,' and it explains the current state (no active candidate, so it matches ask_pipeworx). It does not provide an explicit when-not-to-use statement or compare against ask_pipeworx_grounded, but the intended usage context is clear.

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

All Lemmy 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer factual questions, while bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and polymarket_fill_risk all analyze prediction markets. The Lemmy tools are distinct from the Pipeworx tools, but within each cluster an agent could easily select the wrong tool despite lengthy descriptions.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: single nouns (post, community, site), verb_noun patterns (list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, generate_llms_txt), and ad-hoc names (ask_pipeworx, forget, recall). There is no consistent verb_noun or noun-only pattern across the set, making it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is excessive for a server named 'Lemmy' where only 7 tools (comments, communities, community, post, posts, search, site) actually relate to Lemmy. The vast majority of tools belong to an unrelated Pipeworx data platform, creating a severe scope mismatch and making the server feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

For the Lemmy domain, the tools cover read-only browsing (list posts, view post, list communities, fetch community, comments, search, site metadata) but completely lack write operations like posting, commenting, voting, or moderation. The Pipeworx tools are extensive but do not compensate for the primary domain's gaps since the server is ostensibly about Lemmy.

Resources