Skip to main content
Glama

Overpass

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 5,743 across 1500 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.

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare this safe and read-only, and the description adds substantial behavior: it will refuse rather than fabricate, and enumerates refusal reasons such as not_in_source, no_tool_match, tool_error, data_truncated, and llm_error. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context an agent needs for a grounded-answer tool.

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 longer than average, but every sentence earns its place: purpose, routing behavior, return shape, refusal modes, use cases, and cost trade-off are all packed in without padding. Key differentiators are front-loaded in the first sentence.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description carries the full burden of explaining return values and error behavior; it does so in detail with exact fields and refusal reasons. It also covers the routing context, grounding constraint, cost, and sibling alternative, making the tool fully understandable for selection and invocation.

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%, with every parameter documented as an alias for a natural-language question. The description confirms the question is in natural language but does not add meaning beyond what the schema already states, so the baseline of 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 clearly identifies a specific capability: hallucination-resistant, grounded answering that extracts only from tool results. It explicitly contrasts with the sibling ask_pipeworx, so an agent can distinguish it without inspecting schemas.

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 for high-stakes, quoted, or actionable answers, and gives when-not-to-use guidance by recommending ask_pipeworx for casual lookups. It also discloses the extra LLM call cost, which directly informs tool selection.

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

All Overpass 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but the ask_pipeworx trio (stable, beta, grounded) are near-identical variants, and the five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research heavily overlap in the edge-finding space. Detailed descriptions help, but an agent could easily misselect among these clusters.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are all snake_case and readable, but conventions vary: ask_pipeworx_* uses a prefix pattern, polymarket_* is consistent, yet others mix verbs (scan_competitor_ai_presence, generate_llms_txt) with nouns (entity_profile, resolve_entity). No single verb_noun pattern governs the set.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold and feels like multiple servers merged into one: structured data routing, prediction markets, OSM, memory, subscriptions, and AI-visibility checks. The breadth is impressive but the count is heavy for a single tool surface.

Completeness4/5

The surface is notably complete for its blended domain: memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/list/unsubscribe, data access has multiple router modes plus deep research and claim validation, and prediction markets have research, edge, arbitrage, fill-risk, and cross-venue tools. Minor gaps exist (no subscription update, no explicit reverse-geocoding tool), but core workflows are covered.

Resources