Skip to main content
Glama
Sign In

Remotive

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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 7,210 across 1872 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. An "llm_error" also carries refusal_cause ("wall" = our time budget ended before any model call was made; "route"|"threw"|"unparseable"|"wall_after_failure" = a model call failed); refusal_reason itself is unchanged. 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.

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "question": "What was Apple's fiscal 2023 revenue?"
    },
    "name": "ask_pipeworx_grounded"
  }
}

Input Schema

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoAlias for question.
askNoAlias for question.
textNoAlias for question.
inputNoAlias for question.
queryNoAlias for question.
promptNoAlias for question.
messageNoAlias for question.
questionYesYour question in natural language. Accepts query, q, prompt, text, input, ask, message as aliases.
prefer_toolNoRun this exact tool instead of letting the router choose — use a name from a previous answer's alternatives[]. Arguments are still filled from your question. Unknown names are refused, never guessed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / prefer_tool
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Run this exact tool instead of letting the router choose — use a name from a previous answer's alternatives[]. Arguments are still filled from your question. Unknown names are refused, never guessed.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. Changed4 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / examples
      Added value: +[
+  {
+    "question": "What was Apple's fiscal 2023 revenue?"
+  }
+]
    • addedInput schema / properties / ask
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Alias for question.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • addedInput schema / properties / message
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Alias for question.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • changedInput schema / properties / question / description
      Previous value: -"Your question in natural language. Accepts query, q, prompt, text, input as aliases."New value: +"Your question in natural language. Accepts query, q, prompt, text, input, ask, message as aliases."
  3. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only declare it as a safe read operation; the description goes far beyond by disclosing the exact success payload shape, the full refusal taxonomy ('not_in_source', 'no_tool_match', 'tool_error', 'data_truncated', 'llm_error'), the meaning of refusal_cause variants, and the extra LLM-call cost. That is precisely the behavioral context an agent needs before committing to a higher-latency path.

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?

Front-loads the core identity and use condition, then layers the contract details. The long parenthetical enumerations of refusal reasons and refusal_cause values are dense, but each carries contract information an agent may need to branch on; only the refusal_cause sub-taxonomy feels heavier than strictly necessary.

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 compensates by fully specifying both success and failure response shapes including null fields. For a high-complexity, multi-tool-routing tool, nothing an agent needs to call it or interpret results is missing.

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%, so the aliases, question, and prefer_tool are already fully documented in the schema. The description adds only that arguments are auto-filled from the question and that unknown prefer_tool names are refused — useful but not per-parameter depth. Baseline 3 is appropriate when the schema carries the semantics.

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?

States a specific verb and mode ('Hallucination-resistant answer mode'), explains the routing-then-extraction pipeline, and explicitly contrasts with the sibling ask_pipeworx by naming which one handles casual lookups. An agent can distinguish it from ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta without opening a schema.

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?

Gives an explicit use condition ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and the agent must not invent facts') with concrete examples (financial verdicts, legal claims, medical lookups), plus an explicit when-not ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups') and the cost trade-off that drives the choice.

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

All Remotive 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