Skip to main content
Glama

Send That Email

by io.github.pipeworx-io

What Can I Ask Pipeworx?

suggest_questions
Read-onlyIdempotent

What can I ask Pipeworx? / what is Pipeworx good for? / what can you do? / give me ideas / show me examples / getting started / what data do you have? — the onboarding entry point for an agent that just connected and wants to know what is worth asking. Returns category-bucketed example questions (company financials, drugs & clinical trials, economics, real estate, prediction markets, weather, government & patents, science & academia, news) — each with the exact tool + argument shape that answers it, drawn from the live catalog of thousands of tools. Call with no arguments for the full spread, or pass topic (e.g. "finance", "pharma", "betting") to focus. Use this FIRST when you do not yet know what Pipeworx can do for you, or to learn how to call the meta-tools (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, compare_entities, etc.).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
topicNoOptional focus area: finance | pharma | economics | real-estate | betting | weather | government | science | news. Omit for a cross-category spread.

TDQS

A4.2/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. Description adds details about return format and parameter behavior without contradiction.

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?

Description is slightly long but front-loaded with common queries and detailed enough. Each sentence adds value, but could be more concise.

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 tool with one optional parameter and no output schema, the description fully explains the return format (category-bucketed example questions with tool calls) and use cases.

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% and the description simply restates the schema's parameter description. No additional meaning is added beyond the schema.

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 the tool is the onboarding entry point, returns category-bucketed example questions, and differentiates from siblings by mentioning it teaches how to call meta-tools like ask_pipeworx.

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 first when you don't know what Pipeworx can do, and provides optional topic filtering. Does not give explicit when-not, but context makes it clear.

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

All Send That Email 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer queries with subtly different guarantees. The Polymarket family (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread, polymarket_edge_tracker) also has fuzzy boundaries. Despite detailed descriptions, an agent could easily pick the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: there are verb_noun names (discover_tools, resolve_entity), noun-based names (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending), single verbs (remember, recall, forget), and odd constructions like send_that_email_analyze. No clear pattern dominates, making it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is heavy for a focused server, and most tools are unrelated to the server's apparent email-sending purpose. The count feels bloated and the scope mismatched, though it is not extreme enough for a 1.

Completeness1/5

Given the server name 'Send That Email', the tool surface is severely incomplete: there is only an email analysis tool and no actual sending, drafting, or mailbox management. The bulk of the tools address data lookup and research, leaving the core email workflow entirely unimplemented.

Resources