Skip to main content
Glama

Nws

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?

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the refusal behavior, refusal reasons, output shape with evidence and confidence, and the extra LLM call cost. This gives the agent a strong mental model of how the tool behaves and fails.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, mechanics, return/refusal contract, use cases, and cost trade-off. It is front-loaded with the core differentiator and structured to guide selection before invocation.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the absent output schema, and rich annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what the agent receives on success and on refusal, when to prefer the sibling, and what behavioral guarantees to expect.

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 the schema fully documents the single semantic parameter 'question' with aliases. The description adds conceptual context about the tool filling arguments internally, but it does not need to repeat parameter details; baseline 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 clearly identifies a hallucination-resistant, grounded answer mode for high-stakes reads, with an explicit verb and resource: extracting answers only from tool results. It also contrasts itself with ask_pipeworx, making the tool's distinct purpose immediately recognizable.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on and the agent must not invent facts. It also names the alternative ask_pipeworx and states the trade-off (one extra LLM call) with a clear preference for casual lookups.

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

All Nws 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., multiple Polymarket analysis tools, several query tools (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, compare_entities, entity_profile) with unclear boundaries. Agents may struggle to choose the correct tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

While most names use snake_case, there is no consistent prefix pattern across subdomains (e.g., 'ask_', 'get_', 'polymarket_', 'pipeworx_'). Some names like 'bet_research' and 'deep_research' follow different conventions within the same domain.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for a server named 'Nws' that primarily suggests weather. The set covers many unrelated domains (prediction markets, npm scanning, memory), making the scope unfocused and overloaded.

Completeness3/5

The server has decent coverage for prediction markets and company financials, but weather tools are limited to basic forecasts/alerts, lacking radar, climate, or historical data. Other domains like npm scanning seem tacked on.

Resources