Skip to main content
Glama

Tax Regulations

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?

Annotations already provide readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints, but the description adds material behavior: refusal reasons, exact return shape with evidence and confidence, and the constraint that answers come only from tool results. It does not contradict 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense yet well organized: purpose, mechanism, return schema, refusal modes, use cases, and cost trade-off are each addressed in sequence. No sentence is filler.

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 no output schema, the description fully discloses the success and failure response shapes and lists every refusal reason. Combined with sibling comparison and cost guidance, 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?

All six parameters are aliases for the same natural-language question, and schema_description_coverage is 100%, so the schema already carries full parameter meaning. The description adds no parameter-specific syntax but also does not need to.

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 it is a 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' that routes like ask_pipeworx but extracts answers only from tool results. This distinguishes it sharply from siblings such as ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta.

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 when answers will be quoted, cited, or acted on and names real high-stakes domains. It also gives a concrete alternative: 'prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups' and discloses the extra LLM call cost.

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

All Tax Regulations 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

Many tools overlap in purpose: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are identical, while ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve as query/entry-point tools. The two tax-specific tools are distinct, but the sheer number of generic data-access tools makes it difficult for an agent to select the right one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of snake_case (ask_pipeworx, tax_search), camelCase (ask_pipeworx_beta, compare_entities, discover_tools), and inconsistent verb styles (resolve_entity vs entity_profile vs scan_competitor_ai_presence). No clear pattern is discernible.

Tool Count1/5

The server is named 'Tax Regulations' but only 2 of 33 tools are tax-related. The other 31 tools are unrelated Pipeworx data-access, memory, subscription, and Polymarket tools, making the count wildly excessive and mismatched with the apparent purpose.

Completeness3/5

For the tax regulation domain, tax_search and tax_regulation cover keyword discovery and full-text retrieval, which is a functional core. However, the set lacks any other tax-specific operations (e.g., updates, comparisons, planning), and the majority of the tool surface is irrelevant to the stated server purpose, leaving notable gaps for an agent expecting a coherent tax toolset.

Resources