Skip to main content
Glama

Senate Lobbying

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?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the live experimental state, that no candidate is currently active, the retirement date of the last candidate, and that it falls back to nothing because it is a full router. These are meaningful behavioral caveats an agent needs before invoking it.

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 beta identity and quickly covers identical behavior, current candidate state, usage guidance, and fallback semantics. Every sentence contributes distinct value, and nothing feels redundant or extraneous.

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 complex routing tool with no output schema, the description sufficiently covers identity, current behavior, comparison purpose, usage, and failure mode. An agent has enough context to call it correctly and decide when to prefer it over the stable sibling.

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%, and the schema already documents the question parameter plus all aliases. The description only says 'same arguments' without adding new parameter-level meaning, 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 variant of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with 5,743 tools, and distinguishes it from the stable sibling by noting candidate routing improvements. It is specific about the resource, scope, and relationship to ask_pipeworx, so an agent can differentiate it without opening schemas.

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 to use it like ask_pipeworx when the newest routing is desired, and explains that beta results are compared with the stable router to drive merge decisions. This gives clear selection criteria relative to the closest sibling, ask_pipeworx.

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

All Senate Lobbying 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There are several near-duplicate clusters: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly described as currently identical), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route to the same underlying data; the six Polymarket tools (bet_research, arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) heavily overlap in purpose and are easy to confuse. Even detailed descriptions do not fully resolve which tool an agent should pick first.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case and many follow a verb_noun pattern (search_filings, get_filing, list_issue_codes, resolve_entity), but there is a mix of verb-first names (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, generate_llms_txt), noun-first names (recent_changes, entity_profile, pipeworx_trending), and brand-prefixed families (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*). The naming is readable but not a single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

A server named 'Senate Lobbying' exposes 34 tools, but only three (search_filings, get_filing, list_issue_codes) relate to LDA lobbying data. The remaining 31 cover generic Pipeworx data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, and npm package audits—an extreme overreach for the apparent scope and likely to confuse an agent expecting a focused lobbying toolkit.

Completeness2/5

For the lobbying domain implied by the server name, only search, get-one-filing, and issue-code enumeration exist; there is no aggregation/stats tool, no lobbyist/client entity resolution for LDA, no registrant or foreign-entity browsing, and no coverage of related concepts like lobbying firm hierarchies or spending trends. The generic Pipeworx tools fill a different domain, so the lobbying-specific surface has significant gaps.

Resources