Skip to main content
Glama

Yc Rejection

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?

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses concrete behavioral details: it extracts only from tool results, returns a structured success shape, and explicitly enumerates all refusal reasons. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context that annotations cannot convey.

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 carries operational value: use case, routing behavior, success response, failure response, and when to choose the cheaper sibling. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and the structure is easy to scan.

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?

Given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema, the description fully compensates by specifying the exact return object and all refusal reasons. It also covers cost, alternatives, and usage scenarios, making it complete for an agent to decide and invoke 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?

The input schema already documents all six parameters and their aliases with 100% coverage. The description does not add parameter-level meaning beyond framing the question as natural language, 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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Hallucination-resistant answer mode for high-stakes reads' and clearly distinguishes it from ask_pipeworx by explaining the same routing but extraction-only behavior. It also differentiates from siblings like validate_claim by framing this as the grounded, evidence-backed answer tool.

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 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 names the alternative tool and provides the cost tradeoff, leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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

All Yc Rejection 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., multiple ask_pipeworx variants and several Polymarket analysis tools. The presence of meta-tools like discover_tools and suggest_questions adds confusion. Distinguishing between tools like entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes requires careful reading of descriptions.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: some use snake_case (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx), others use underscores (compare_entities, deep_research). Prefixes like pipeworx_ and polymarket_ are inconsistently applied, and there is no clear verb_noun pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools, the server is heavily over-scoped for its name 'Yc Rejection'. Only one tool directly relates to that domain. The rest constitute a full data platform, making the count far too high for the implied narrow purpose.

Completeness1/5

For a server named 'Yc Rejection', the tool set is severely incomplete: only one tool generates rejection text. There are no tools for application management, review, or related tasks. The actual completeness of the underlying platform is irrelevant given the misleading name.

Resources