Skip to main content
Glama

Nyc Parks

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Ask Pipeworx Beta

ask_pipeworx_beta
Read-onlyIdempotent

Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router (same 5,743 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.

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses that candidate routing improvements are enabled live, that no candidate is currently active, and that the tool is a full working router with no fallback. This experimental context is valuable and consistent with readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false.

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?

The description is moderately sized and well-structured, with the core beta/universal-router identity first, followed by current status and usage guidance. A few phrases are slightly repetitive (e.g., 'identical' plus repeated 'same...same...same'), but every sentence contributes operational context.

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?

For a complex universal router, the description covers what the tool is, when to use it, and its current experimental state. The response shape is stated to be identical to ask_pipeworx but not described in detail; however, relying on the stable sibling and the schema is reasonable because no output schema is present.

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%, with the question parameter and all aliases already well documented in the schema. The description adds only that arguments match ask_pipeworx, which is useful compatibility context but does not deepen parameter meaning.

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 this as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, an 'identical universal router' with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes itself from the stable ask_pipeworx sibling by explicitly positioning it as the experimental edge with candidate routing improvements.

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 it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing.' It also explains the comparison against the stable router to decide what merges, and clarifies there is no fallback, making the tool's role and safe usage clear relative to alternatives.

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

All Nyc Parks 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded trio are functionally near-identical to an agent (the beta is explicitly described as currently identical to stable), and the five polymarket_* tools (edges, arbitrage, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) have heavily overlapping concerns around finding and validating prediction-market edges. The descriptions are detailed, but the boundaries require careful reading to pick correctly.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools use snake_case and mostly follow a verb-first or noun-phrase convention, with recognizable family prefixes (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*) that aid navigation. Minor deviations exist — bare nouns like categories and events, and the inconsistent verb placement in bet_research vs. validate_claim — but the overall pattern is predictable.

Tool Count1/5

33 tools is already heavy, but the fatal problem is that the server is named 'Nyc Parks' while ~31 of 33 tools are a generic Pipeworx data-retrieval/prediction-market toolkit. The count is egregiously mismatched to the stated purpose; only 2 tools relate to NYC Parks at all.

Completeness2/5

For the server's literal name, the surface is severely incomplete: categories and events exist, but there is no way to look up parks, facilities, permits, or event details, and no CRUD-lifecycle coverage. Viewed as a Pipeworx data toolkit the surface is quite thorough, but that is not what the server claims to be, so the stated NYC Parks domain is barely covered and creates dead ends.

Resources