Skip to main content
Glama

Telnyx Lookup

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewDiscussionsAdmin

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 7,138 across 1855 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. An "llm_error" also carries refusal_cause ("wall" = our time budget ended before any model call was made; "route"|"threw"|"unparseable"|"wall_after_failure" = a model call failed); refusal_reason itself is unchanged. 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

NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
qNoAlias for question.
askNoAlias for question.
textNoAlias for question.
inputNoAlias for question.
queryNoAlias for question.
promptNoAlias for question.
messageNoAlias for question.
questionYesYour question in natural language. Accepts query, q, prompt, text, input, ask, message as aliases.
prefer_toolNoRun this exact tool instead of letting the router choose — use a name from a previous answer's alternatives[]. Arguments are still filled from your question. Unknown names are refused, never guessed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / prefer_tool
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Run this exact tool instead of letting the router choose — use a name from a previous answer's alternatives[]. Arguments are still filled from your question. Unknown names are refused, never guessed.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses cost (one extra model call), the full success payload shape, and every refusal mode with the exact discrimination between 'llm_error' and 'wall'/'route'/'threw'/'unparseable'. It also notes that unknown prefer_tool names are refused rather than guessed, which is non-obvious behavior.

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?

Front-loads the core value proposition and the cost/alternative tradeoff is placed early. It is dense but long, and the parenthetical enumeration of refusal_cause values is heavy for a single sentence, though it does carry real information.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description fully specifies the return contract for both success and refusal paths, plus cost and tool-routing side effects. An agent has everything needed to choose and invoke it 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% — the aliases and prefer_tool semantics are already documented in the schema, so the baseline is 3. The description adds no parameter-level detail (e.g., whether prefer_tool bypasses grounding or affects refusal behavior), so it does not exceed the baseline.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('extract the answer using only what the tool result contains') plus the routing behavior shared with ask_pipeworx. It names the sibling and the axis of differentiation (grounding vs. casual lookup), so an agent can separate it from ask_pipeworx without opening either schema.

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?

Gives an explicit when-to-use rule ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on') with concrete examples (financial verdicts, legal claims, medical lookups) and an explicit when-not ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'), including the cost tradeoff of one extra LLM call.

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

All Telnyx Lookup toolsInspect
Try in Browser
One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

Resources