Skip to main content
Glama

Pipeworx Faq

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

About Pipeworx

about_pipeworx
Read-onlyIdempotent

Answers questions about Pipeworx itself — what it is, pricing and the free tier, rate limits, how routing and grounding work, reliability and uptime, privacy, comparisons, how to submit an API, and how to get support. Use this for meta questions about the Pipeworx platform or gateway. Example: about_pipeworx({ question: "what does Pipeworx cost?" })

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
questionYesThe question about Pipeworx, e.g. "is it free?", "how does routing work?", "what data do you have?"

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "question": "what does Pipeworx cost?"
+  },
+  {
+    "question": "how does routing work?"
+  }
+]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint. The description adds useful context on the scope of questions (platform meta) without contradicting 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?

Two sentences plus an example, no wasted words. The structure front-loads the purpose and uses a clear example to illustrate usage.

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?

Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, no output schema) and the annotations covering safety, the description fully covers what an agent needs to understand its purpose and usage.

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?

Only one parameter 'question' with 100% schema description coverage. The description does not add semantic detail beyond the schema's own description, so baseline 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 states 'Answers questions about Pipeworx itself' and enumerates specific topics (pricing, rate limits, routing, etc.), distinguishing it from sibling tools that address other domains or actions.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Use this for meta questions about the Pipeworx platform or gateway' and provides a concrete example. While it doesn't list exclusions, the sibling list implies alternatives for non-meta queries.

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

All Pipeworx Faq toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources