Skip to main content
Glama

Useragent

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Ask Pipeworx Beta

ask_pipeworx_beta
Read-onlyIdempotent

Beta version of ask_pipeworx: identical universal router (same 5,743 tools, same arguments, same response shape) with candidate routing improvements enabled live whenever one is under test. No candidate is active right now (the last was retired on outcome evidence 2026-07-26), so this currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly. Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing; results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges. Falls back to nothing — this IS a full working router, just the experimental edge.

Input Schema

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

TDQS

A4.1/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses live candidate routing behavior, the fact that no candidate is currently active as of 2026-07-26, and that it is a full working router rather than a fallback stub. This dynamic context is valuable and not captured by the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint annotations.

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 three sentences, each carrying distinct value: definition/parity, live-candidate status, and usage guidance. It is appropriately sized for the experimental nature of the tool, though slightly dense.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the rich annotations, full schema coverage, and the description's coverage of experimental status, current parity with ask_pipeworx, and how results are used, an agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool correctly. An output schema is absent, but the description states the response matches ask_pipeworx.

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%, with all six parameters documented as aliases for the required 'question'. The description only mentions 'same arguments' and does not add semantic detail beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 identifies the tool as a beta universal router identical to ask_pipeworx, with the same 5,743 tools, arguments, and response shape. It further distinguishes it as the experimental edge with candidate routing improvements, so an agent can separate it from siblings without opening schemas.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

It explicitly states when to use it: 'Use it exactly like ask_pipeworx when you want the newest routing' and explains that results are compared against the stable router. It does not spell out explicit exclusion conditions or alternative tools like ask_pipeworx_grounded, but the context is clear.

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

All Useragent 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all perform overlapping routed-search functions; ask_pipeworx_beta is even documented as currently identical to ask_pipeworx. The three Polymarket discovery tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk) also have blurry boundaries around finding vs. validating vs. executing on edges.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly all tools use snake_case with a verb_noun or descriptive pattern (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim, resolve_entity, list_subscriptions). Minor deviations exist — bare verbs like remember/recall/forget and noun_first names like bet_research or entity_profile — but the convention is largely predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is heavy, and the set spans unrelated domains: Pipeworx data routing, prediction-market trading, agent memory, subscription management, npm dependency checks, user-agent parsing, and llms.txt generation. The sub-clusters each earn their place individually, but as a single server surface the count is unjustifiably large and scattershot.

Completeness3/5

The Pipeworx research surface is quite complete (lookup, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, validation, entity resolution, discovery, feedback), and memory/subscription lifecycles are fully covered. However, the server has no coherent single domain — user-agent parsing (the server's namesake) has only one tool, while unrelated utilities like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency appear with no supporting ecosystem.

Resources