Skip to main content
Glama

Slack_connect

by io.github.pipeworx-io

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 5,738 across 1499 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. 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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoAlias for question.
textNoAlias for question.
inputNoAlias for question.
queryNoAlias for question.
promptNoAlias for question.
questionYesYour question in natural language. Accepts query, q, prompt, text, input as aliases.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses refusal behavior, exact refusal reasons, the evidence/verbatim quote returned on success, and the cost tradeoff. This adds substantial behavioral context without contradicting any annotation.

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 rich but not bloated, front-loading the core purpose and then covering behavior, refusal semantics, and usage guidance. Some supporting detail (e.g., '5,724 across 1497 sources') adds color but is not strictly necessary for invocation.

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?

With no output schema, the description correctly explains the success and failure return shapes, including refusal reasons. It also covers when to use it, why it is more expensive, and how it differs from the sibling, making the tool fully actionable.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description only restates that the input is a natural-language question and does not add syntax, formatting, or usage nuances beyond what the schema already documents for the six aliases.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: it is a 'hallucination-resistant answer mode' that routes like ask_pipeworx and extracts answers only from tool results. It also distinguishes itself from the sibling ask_pipeworx by positioning this as the grounded, higher-assurance variant.

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 states when to use this tool: whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on and facts must not be invented. It also names the alternative ask_pipeworx for casual lookups and gives a concrete tradeoff ('costs one extra LLM call'), making the selection decision unambiguous.

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

All Slack_connect 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, particularly the multiple 'ask_pipeworx' variants and various Polymarket tools that serve similar functions. The lack of clear boundaries between data retrieval tools makes it difficult for an agent to choose the right one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming patterns are inconsistent: Slack tools use a 'slack_' prefix, while Pipeworx tools use a mix of verbs (ask_, validate_, resolve_) and nouns (entity_profile, bet_research). No uniform convention is applied across the set.

Tool Count3/5

With 36 tools, the count is high but not unreasonable for a comprehensive data platform. However, the inclusion of only 5 Slack tools in a server named 'Slack_connect' indicates a mismatch between tool count and intended purpose.

Completeness1/5

For a Slack integration, the tool surface is severely incomplete—missing core operations like creating channels, archiving, reactions, or message threading. The Pipeworx tools are extensive but unrelated to the server's stated purpose.

Resources