Skip to main content
Glama

Oqmd

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. First observed

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 exact success return shape, the explicit refusal shape, the possible refusal_reason values, the extra LLM call cost, and the guarantee that answers are derived only from the tool result. This is rich, actionable 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Three dense sentences capture purpose, behavior, return/refusal shapes, usage rules, and the alternative tool. The main value is front-loaded, and every clause contributes necessary decision-making information.

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?

Although there is no output schema, the description fully compensates by specifying the return object fields and refusal_reason enumeration. It also covers cost, routing behavior, and when to prefer the sibling tool, making the tool effectively self-contained for an agent.

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?

Parameter schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already describes the question parameter, its natural-language form, and accepts aliases. The description adds no parameter-specific details beyond mentioning that routing fills arguments, so it meets the schema-heavy baseline without adding extra value.

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 states a specific verb and resource: it is a grounded, hallucination-resistant answer mode that fetches data and extracts answers only from tool results. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling ask_pipeworx, easily separating its role from other research and lookup tools.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use when answers will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and facts must not be invented, with examples. It also names the cheaper alternative, ask_pipeworx, and tells the agent to prefer it 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 Oqmd 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

Many tools overlap in purpose: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer questions; multiple prediction market tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk) have subtle distinctions. An agent would struggle to choose correctly among these.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_subscriptions, generate_llms_txt). A few are noun phrases (stable_phases) but the style is uniform and predictable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is high for a single server, especially given the mix of two unrelated domains (materials database and general data querying). Many prediction market tools could be consolidated, and the broad scope suggests over-engineering.

Completeness3/5

The materials data side covers search and retrieval adequately. The query side offers many capabilities but has redundant paths (e.g., multiple ways to ask questions) and gaps in editing or updating data. Overall coverage is mixed.

Resources