Skip to main content
Glama

Mychem

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Ask Pipeworx Beta

ask_pipeworx_beta
Read-onlyIdempotent

Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router (same 5,801 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

A3.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description discloses that no candidate is active right now so it matches ask_pipeworx exactly, that candidate routing improvements are enabled live whenever under test, and that it does not fall back to anything else. Combined with the read-only annotations, this gives a good sense of expected behavior.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is somewhat repetitive, repeating 'identical', 'same ask_pipeworx', and 'experimental' themes across several sentences. It could be tightened without losing key information, but it is not excessively long.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers the beta relationship to ask_pipeworx, current active candidate status, routing behavior, and the fact that it is a full working router. It gives enough context for an agent to decide whether to invoke it, though it could mention stable-vs-beta tradeoffs more explicitly.

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 schema already documents all parameters fully as aliases for 'question', and the description adds no additional parameter semantics beyond saying 'same arguments' as ask_pipeworx. Since schema coverage is 100%, the baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies the tool as a beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with the same 5,801 tools and same arguments. It distinguishes itself from the stable sibling by focusing on 'newest routing' and candidate routing improvements, though it relies on the user knowing what ask_pipeworx does.

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 it 'exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains that results are compared against the stable router. This gives direct selection guidance, though it could more explicitly state when to prefer the stable ask_pipeworx instead.

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

All Mychem 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set contains several near-duplicate entry points (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) plus a dense family of polymarket_* and chemical lookup tools whose boundaries are subtle. An agent can easily pick the wrong router variant, edge-scanning tool, or chemical search tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Snake_case is used throughout, but naming style is mixed: some tools are verb-first (query, resolve_entity, validate_claim), some are noun/domain-first (entity_profile, recent_changes, polymarket_arbitrage), and the ask_pipeworx variants use suffixes instead of a consistent verb pattern. It is readable, but there is no predictable convention beyond snake_case.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well past the comfortable range, and the count is especially hard to justify because they span unrelated domains: chemistry lookups, a Pipeworx data gateway, prediction-market analytics, memory, subscriptions, AI-visibility checks, and npm dependency scanning. Many of these have no obvious connection to the 'Mychem' name or to each other.

Completeness4/5

Within each contained workflow the surface is fairly complete: chemistry has search/fetch/metadata, Pipeworx has lookup/research/discovery/validation, subscriptions and memory both have lifecycle coverage, and the Polymarket family covers research, edge detection, persistence, and fill risk. Some minor gaps exist (no general web retrieval or execution/trading action), but agents can work around them.

Resources