Skip to main content
Glama

Pipeworx

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare the tool read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds critical behavioral context: candidate routing improvements may be enabled live, no candidate is currently active (retired 2026-07-26), and the tool is a full working router with no fallback. This goes well beyond annotation coverage with no contradiction.

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 four sentences are tightly packed, front-loading the identity as the beta router, then current state, usage instruction, and a final reassurance. Every sentence earns its place; the specific tool count and retirement date are concrete, purposeful details without filler.

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?

For a single-question router with no output schema and rich annotations, the description is complete: it states what the tool does, its current experimental status, how to invoke it, and that the response shape matches ask_pipeworx. An agent can decide when to use it and what to expect from the call.

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 'question' and its five aliases fully documented. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond echoing 'same arguments', so the baseline of 3 applies.

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 over the same 5,743 tools with the same arguments and response shape. It explicitly frames it as the 'experimental edge' and distinguishes it from the stable ask_pipeworx and the grounded variant without ambiguity.

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 the newest routing is desired, and explains that results are compared against the stable router to decide merges. This provides clear when-to-use guidance and names the alternative, satisfying the dimension fully.

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

All Pipeworx 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially the central data access tools like ask_pipeworx, deep_research, entity_profile, and compare_entities. However, the multiple polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) and the similar ask_pipeworx variants could cause confusion, especially for an agent quickly scanning options.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are mostly snake_case and follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., compare_entities, search_packs, resolve_entity). Some deviations exist, such as pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage (starting with a noun), and single-word names like forget and remember, but overall the style is readable and consistent.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the server feels overly heavy. While the broad domain (structured data across many sources) justifies a large number, the count exceeds the recommended 15–25 range, making it unwieldy for agents to navigate efficiently without extensive discovery.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of domains: company financials, drugs, economics, prediction markets, weather, and even MCP discovery. There are few obvious gaps given the stated purpose, though some areas like social media or international data could be added. Overall, the surface is well-rounded.

Resources