Skip to main content
Glama

Stratz

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 5,743 across 1500 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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it details the refusal taxonomy (not_in_source, no_tool_match, tool_error, data_truncated, llm_error) and the exact success payload shape. It also discloses the 'ONLY tool result contents' constraint and the additional cost, none of which contradict the annotations.

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 key mode and use case are front-loaded, and each sentence earns its place: return contract, refusal contract, applicability, and cost tradeoff. The length is justified by the amount of essential behavioral information packed into four sentences.

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 fully compensates by specifying both success and refusal return shapes with field names and reason enums. It also covers scalability/routing, cost, and use context, so an agent has everything needed to invoke and interpret this tool.

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%: the question field and all five aliases are documented in the schema itself. The description adds no extra parameter details beyond reinforcing that a natural-language question is the input, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 identifies a specific verb/resource: a grounded, hallucination-resistant answer mode that routes like ask_pipeworx and extracts answers only from tool results. It clearly differentiates from the sibling ask_pipeworx by emphasizing evidence-backed output and explicit refusals rather than merely returning search results.

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 (answers that will be quoted, cited, or acted on, with no invented facts) and when not to (casual lookups, prefer ask_pipeworx). The extra LLM-call cost is disclosed as the deciding factor, providing an unambiguous selection rule.

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

All Stratz 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping or intentionally duplicated purposes: ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta currently behave identically, and the Polymarket cluster (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) presents multiple scanners with fuzzy boundaries. The long descriptions help, but the set as a whole is hard to navigate without close reading.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of bare single nouns (hero, match, meta, remember, forget), snake_case verb-first names (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, generate_llms_txt), and noun-first compounds (pipeworx_feedback, bet_research, scan_competitor_ai_presence). There is no consistent verb_noun or noun-verb convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

At 43 tools, the server bundles at least five unrelated domains (Dota 2 stats, Pipeworx data querying, Polymarket analytics, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility). That is far too many for a focused MCP server, and the mix makes the surface feel like a grab bag rather than a purpose-built toolkit.

Completeness4/5

Each subdomain individually has solid coverage: Dota 2 has heroes/matches/players/tournaments/meta plus a GraphQL fallback, the data layer has discovery + routing + grounding + validation, and memory/subscriptions have full lifecycle operations. The only real gap is cohesion across domains; within each slice there are no obvious dead ends.

Resources