Skip to main content
Glama

Noaa Coastwatch

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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 6,876 across 1811 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.
prefer_toolNoRun this exact tool instead of letting the router choose — use a name from a previous answer's alternatives[]. Arguments are still filled from your question. Unknown names are refused, never guessed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / prefer_tool
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Run this exact tool instead of letting the router choose — use a name from a previous answer's alternatives[]. Arguments are still filled from your question. Unknown names are refused, never guessed.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description goes well beyond them: the extraction-only constraint, the enumerated refusal reasons (not_in_source, no_tool_match, tool_error, data_truncated, llm_error), the extra LLM-call cost, and the fact that unknown prefer_tool names are refused rather than guessed. This is exactly the added context the dimension rewards.

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?

Dense but front-loaded: the defining trait ('hallucination-resistant') and the mechanism come first, then the return contract, then the routing guidance. Long sentences, but each carries distinct information; only minor trimming possible.

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 compensates by spelling out the success payload shape ({answer, evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, refusal_reason:null}) and the refusal shape. Combined with the cost/routing guidance, an agent has everything needed to call and interpret this tool.

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%, so the baseline is 3 — the schema already documents the question aliases and prefer_tool's fallback behavior. The description adds no parameter-level detail beyond what the schema states (e.g., no format, length, or alias-resolution notes).

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 of operation (grounded/extractive answering) with a concrete mechanism: routing across 6,876 tools then extracting only from tool results. Explicitly frames itself against the sibling ask_pipeworx ('same routing as 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?

Gives an explicit use condition ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on... must not invent facts') with concrete domains, and an explicit when-not ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'), plus the cost tradeoff (one extra LLM call). Both sides of the routing decision are covered.

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

All Noaa Coastwatch toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources