Skip to main content
Glama

Pharma Intel

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?

Even though annotations already mark it read-only and idempotent, the description discloses rich behavioral details: adherence to only tool-result content, a structured success response, explicit refusal reasons, and one extra LLM call as cost. There is no contradiction with the annotations.

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 front-loaded with the primary purpose and every subsequent sentence adds actionable information. The return contract, refusal cases, and usage tradeoff are dense but each earns its place.

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?

With no output schema present, the description fully specifies the success and refusal response shapes, and gives enough context for high-stakes vs casual use. Nothing essential is missing for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

Input schema coverage is 100% and already describes the question parameter and its aliases, so the description needn't repeat them. The routing description adds context about how the question is processed, but no parameter-level semantics beyond the schema.

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 with a specific purpose — a hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads — and differentiates itself from ask_pipeworx by stating it extracts answers using only the tool result contents. This tells an agent exactly what resource and behavior to expect.

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 says when to use this tool ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on... must not invent facts') and when to prefer the alternative ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'). It also names the sibling tool it is compared to.

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

All Pharma Intel 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Every tool has a clearly distinct purpose, even within the same domain (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded vs ask_pipeworx_beta are differentiated by groundedness/beta status; polymarket_edges vs polymarket_arbitrage vs polymarket_fill_risk each target discovery vs arbitrage vs execution risk). The descriptions are highly detailed, eliminating ambiguity about when to use each.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use snake_case consistently, and most follow a verb-first pattern (ask_, compare_, discover_, search_, validate_), but a few are noun-first (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, recent_alerts). The style is readable and predictable, though not perfectly uniform in the verb_noun convention.

Tool Count2/5

With 37 tools, the server is heavily over-scoped, especially given the 'Pharma Intel' name that suggests a focused pharma domain. Many tools are general-purpose (prediction markets, memory, subscription management, feedback) unrelated to the server's apparent purpose, making it feel like a grab bag rather than a cohesive set.

Completeness4/5

The pharma-specific tools cover drug profiles, safety, pipeline scans, catalysts, indication landscapes, and sponsor diligence – a solid lifecycle coverage. The broader data/query/prediction-market tools also feel complete for their respective sub-domains. The only minor gaps are niche operations (e.g., updating a subscription), but these are not critical to the core workflows.

Resources