Skip to main content
Glama

Mfapi India

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?

Discloses the return shape, success and refusal branches, refusal reasons, the grounding constraint of using only tool results, and the extra LLM call cost. The annotations only cover read-only/idempotent/open-world traits, so the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them. No contradiction found.

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?

Dense but well-organized: purpose, mechanism, return contract, use cases, and cost trade-off all appear in sequence. Every clause adds information, and there is no filler or repetition even though the description is relatively long.

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 supplies the full return contract and refusal semantics, plus routing context and cost comparison. It provides everything an agent needs to decide whether to invoke it and to interpret its result; optional examples are not necessary.

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 aliases for the question, already clearly documented in the input schema. The description adds no new parameter-level meaning, but the schema fully carries that burden, so 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?

States a specific purpose: hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads, and explicitly contrasts with ask_pipeworx by grounding answers in tool results. This differentiates it from sibling ask_pipeworx and signals when to pick it.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: whenever answers will be quoted, cited, or acted on and facts must not be invented, with concrete examples like financial verdicts and legal claims. Also says to prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups due to the extra LLM call, giving both when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All Mfapi India 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clear, distinct purpose. The various `ask_pipeworx*` variants are differentiated by mode (single vs grounded vs research). `get_nav_history` vs `latest_nav` serve different query granularities. Administrative tools like `remember`/`recall`/`forget` are clearly separate. No two tools overlap in functionality.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent snake_case convention and generally use `verb_noun` order (e.g., `ask_pipeworx`, `search_schemes`, `validate_claim`). A few exceptions like `entity_profile` (noun_verb) exist, but the pattern is mostly predictable.

Tool Count3/5

At 34 tools, the server is quite large, including many specialized tools (e.g., multiple Polymarket tools, administrative memory/subscription tools) that could arguably be split into separate servers. The number feels slightly excessive for a coherent, focused server.

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers an extraordinarily wide range of domains: company financials, SEC filings, FDA drugs, economic data, mutual funds, real estate, prediction markets, npm dependencies, AI visibility, and more. It also includes memory, subscription, and feedback mechanisms. There are no obvious gaps for the domains addressed.

Resources