Skip to main content
Glama

Take The Meeting

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 5,767 across 1506 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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, but the description adds significant behavioral context: it only extracts from tool result content, returns verbatim evidence and confidence, can refuse with specific refusal_reason values, and costs an extra LLM call. This goes well beyond the annotations and no contradiction exists.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose is front-loaded, then the exact output and refusal contract, then usage guidance and cost comparison. There is no filler or repetition of schema content.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully specifies the success return shape and all refusal_reason values, plus evidence behavior and cost implications. Combined with the complete input schema and annotations, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema fully documents the question parameter and its aliases. The description does not add parameter-level detail, but it does not need to; baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the parameter 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?

The description states a specific purpose: a hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads, with exact behavior (extracts answers using only tool results) and explicit differentiation from ask_pipeworx. It identifies the resource and the distinctive grounded extraction mode, so an agent can distinguish it from siblings.

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?

The description explicitly says when to use this tool ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on... must not invent facts'), when not to prefer it ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'), and names the alternative directly. It also explains the cost tradeoff of one extra LLM call, giving clear routing guidance.

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

All Take The Meeting 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct, well-documented roles, but the set includes two effectively identical routers (ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta, with the latter explicitly matching the former right now) and a dense cluster of six Polymarket tools that an agent must read carefully to choose among. This is more than a minor overlap, though the detailed descriptions prevent it from being complete chaos.

Naming Consistency3/5

Everything is snake_case, which is a plus, but the patterns are inconsistent: some tools are verb_noun (resolve_entity, validate_claim, list_subscriptions), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, bet_research, recent_alerts), some use brand prefixes (ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), and take_the_meeting_evaluate is a sentence-like outlier. The prefixes do provide grouping, but the naming doesn't give a predictable action structure.

Tool Count2/5

32 top-level tools is above the 25+ threshold and will bloat an agent's tool-selection surface, especially because the server name 'Take The Meeting' suggests a narrow meeting tool while 31 of the tools are unrelated Pipeworx/data features. Even as a broad data-research server, several tools could be collapsed (the ask variants, the Polymarket family), so the count feels inflated.

Completeness2/5

For the purpose implied by the server name and the lone meeting tool, the surface is severely incomplete: there is no way to list or fetch meetings, access calendar/attendee context, or do anything beyond evaluating one set of supplied parameters. For the broad data-research domain that most tools actually serve, the read/research side is rich, but that is a completely different purpose from 'Take The Meeting', leaving the meeting feature as a disconnected dead end.

Resources