Skip to main content
Glama

nvd

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 5,798 across 1517 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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds significant behavior beyond them: exact success response shape, explicit refusal reasons, the constraint that answers use only tool result contents, and the cost of one extra LLM call. This is rich, non-redundant transparency.

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?

Information-dense but well-structured: the core behavior is front-loaded, followed by return contract, usage guidance, and cost trade-off. Every sentence earns its place, including the refusal reason enum and the comparison to ask_pipeworx.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully specifies the return shape on both success and refusal, states when to use it, names the alternative, and discloses the extra cost. Nothing essential is missing for correct invocation and interpretation.

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%, fully documenting the single 'question' parameter and its aliases. The description doesn't add parameter-level detail, but the schema already carries the 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 verb and resource: 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' and 'Same routing as ask_pipeworx'. It clearly differentiates from the sibling ask_pipeworx by emphasizing grounded extraction and refusal behavior.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on' and gives concrete high-stakes examples. It also names the alternative ask_pipeworx and explains when to prefer the cheaper option, making the routing decision unambiguous.

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

All nvd 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but some overlap exists (e.g., ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research and ask_pipeworx). The Polymarket tools are numerous but clearly differentiated.

Naming Consistency3/5

Mixed naming conventions: some tools start with verbs (ask_pipeworx, search_cves), others with nouns (entity_profile, recent_changes). Prefixes (pipeworx_, polymarket_) help but the pattern is not uniform.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is excessive for a single server, covering too many domains (NVD, Pipeworx, Polymarket, SEC, memory). This reduces coherence and makes it hard for agents to navigate.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are covered: CVE lookup, company research, prediction market analysis, and data querying. However, there are minor gaps (e.g., no tool for editing stored data, no CVE metrics beyond search).

Resources