Skip to main content
Glama

Qrcode

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Ask Pipeworx Beta

ask_pipeworx_beta
Read-onlyIdempotent

Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router (same 5,798 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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A3.9/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: candidate routing improvements, the fact that no candidate is active right now, the comparison against the stable router, and that there is no fallback — it is a full working router.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is front-loaded with the key fact that this is the beta version of ask_pipeworx, followed by useful current-state and fallback information. It is slightly redundant in saying both 'same arguments, same response shape' and 'matches ask_pipeworx exactly,' but no sentence is pure filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description gives enough context for an agent to decide when to use this beta router: it covers the experimental nature, the current inactive state, the identical behavior to ask_pipeworx, and the lack of fallback. It does not describe the response shape, but it explicitly references ask_pipeworx for that.

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 description coverage is 100%, with `question` and all five aliases documented. The description adds no parameter-level meaning, but it doesn't need to because the schema already fully covers parameter semantics.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

Description clearly identifies the tool as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, an 'identical universal router' with the same tools, arguments, and response shape. It distinguishes it from the stable sibling by its experimental routing edge, though it relies on the reader already knowing what ask_pipeworx does.

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 to use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when someone wants the newest routing, and notes that no candidate is currently active so it matches the stable router exactly. It provides clear context but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternatives like ask_pipeworx_grounded.

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

All Qrcode 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool families blur together: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route questions to the same underlying data sources for slightly different modes, and the six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research all orbit prediction-market opportunity-finding. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent would need to read deeply to reliably distinguish them.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are all readable snake_case and some clusters are consistent (ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), but the set mixes verb-first names like create_qr and validate_claim with noun-first names like entity_profile, recent_alerts, polymarket_edges, and pipeworx_trending. There is no single predictable naming convention.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is above the 25+ threshold and reads as a full platform rather than a focused tool. For a server labeled Qrcode, only two tools are QR-related, so the count is severely inflated even if the data-research breadth is defensible.

Completeness2/5

The Pipeworx data-research surface is fairly complete: query, grounded verification, entity profiling, comparisons, recent changes, discovery, memory, and subscriptions are all represented. But the QR domain for the stated server purpose is only create/read with no batch, styling, or management, and the overall set has no coherent domain to be complete against.

Resources