Skip to main content
Glama

Openreview

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Ask Pipeworx Beta

ask_pipeworx_beta
Read-onlyIdempotent

Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router (same 5,798 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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing the beta nature, confirming no candidate is currently active, and explaining that the tool is a full working router with no fallback. It also states that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges, which is important behavioral context.

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 key points are front-loaded, but the description is longer than needed and includes a dated detail about the last candidate being retired on 2026-07-26, which does not materially help an agent invoke the tool. The essential guidance could be delivered in fewer words.

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 experimental status, current behavioral equivalence to ask_pipeworx, routing improvements, and the fact that this is a complete working router. There is no output schema, but stating that the response shape matches ask_pipeworx provides sufficient contract knowledge for an agent familiar with that sibling.

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%, and every property is already documented as an alias for the required question parameter. The description adds only a cross-reference that arguments are identical to ask_pipeworx, which is helpful but not necessary given the schema coverage. 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?

The description opens by identifying the tool as the beta version of ask_pipeworx and immediately states it is an identical universal router with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It clearly differentiates the tool from the stable ask_pipeworx by explaining the experimental routing candidates.

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 explicitly instructs the agent to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when it wants the newest routing and names the stable router as the comparison point. This gives a clear selection condition and identifies the relevant alternative.

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

All Openreview 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set includes both OpenReview-specific tools (e.g., get_paper, list_submissions) and a large number of unrelated tools for Pipeworx, Polymarket, and SEC filings. While individual descriptions are clear, the mix of domains creates confusion about which tools to use for a given task, leading to potential misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow inconsistent patterns: some use underscore_case (ai_visibility_check, generate_llms_txt), some are verb_noun (get_paper, list_venues), and others use descriptive phrases (ask_pipeworx_grounded, polymarket_arbitrage). The lack of a unified naming scheme makes the tool set feel disjointed.

Tool Count2/5

With 37 tools, the count is too high for a server supposedly focused on OpenReview. Only about 6 tools are directly related to OpenReview; the rest are for unrelated domains like prediction markets, data retrieval, and memory management. The scope is unclear and overloaded.

Completeness2/5

For the OpenReview domain, the tool set covers basic retrieval (get_paper, search_notes, list_submissions) but lacks operations like creating or updating notes, which are common in a review platform. The inclusion of many non-OpenReview tools does not compensate for these gaps, leaving the surface incomplete for its stated purpose.

Resources