Skip to main content
Glama

W3c

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 5,798 across 1517 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. First observed

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes far beyond the annotations by disclosing the exact success return shape, the full refusal_reason enum, the constraint that answers come only from the tool result, and the extra LLM call cost. This is rich behavioral context with no contradiction against the readOnly/idempotent 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 description is front-loaded with the core purpose and each subsequent sentence adds decision-relevant detail: routing, return contract, refusal reasons, usage context, and cost tradeoff. It is long but dense, with no filler or redundancy.

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?

Because there is no output schema, the description correctly carries the full return contract and refusal semantics. It also covers the selection context, the relationship to ask_pipeworx, and cost behavior, making it complete for both invocation and tool choice.

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 baseline is 3 even though the description adds no parameter-specific guidance. The description focuses on routing and output behavior rather than the question parameter, which is acceptable because the schema already documents all aliases and natural-language usage.

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 distinct mode: a hallucination-resistant answer mode that routes through Pipeworx and extracts answers only from fetched tool results. It clearly differentiates itself from the sibling ask_pipeworx by emphasizing grounded extraction, evidence, and refusal behavior.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('whenever an answer will be quoted, cited, or acted on') and when not to ('prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups'). It also explains the cost tradeoff of one extra LLM call, giving an agent a clear decision rule.

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

All W3c 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
Disambiguation3/5

The three ask_pipeworx variants plus deep_research and validate_claim overlap heavily on the same routing capability — ask_pipeworx_beta is even explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now. The polymarket tools (arbitrage/edges/edge_tracker/fill_risk/kalshi_spread) form a second cluster with fuzzy boundaries, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap. However, most other tools (w3c_search, spec, remember/recall/forget, subscribe/unsubscribe) have clear distinct roles.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are generally descriptive snake_case with recognizable prefix families (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, w3c_*), but verb usage is inconsistent: passive labels like ai_visibility_check and entity_profile sit alongside imperatives like recall, forget, subscribe, and resolve_. There's no uniform verb_noun or noun_pattern convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is over the heavy threshold, and the count is wildly mismatched to the server's claimed identity: the server is named 'W3c' yet only 2 of 33 tools (w3c_search, w3c_spec) relate to W3C. The remaining 31 form a sprawling Pipeworx data/prediction-market service that would justify its own server, making this aggregation incoherent.

Completeness3/5

For its actual purpose (broad data research + prediction markets), the surface is fairly complete: search, grounded answers, deep research, comparison, entity profiles, entity resolution, memory, subscriptions, and feedback cover the main workflows. But for the server's stated W3C purpose, only search and spec-detail exist with no broader standards tooling. The domain mismatch makes completeness hard to credit.

Resources