Skip to main content
Glama

Zendesk

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. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond that: it discloses the exact success return shape, the possible refusal reasons, the 'only use tool result' constraint, and the extra LLM call cost. This fully covers the operational behavior an agent needs to know.

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 front-loaded with the key concept, then the critical use cases, then the cost/alternative. Every sentence contributes distinct value: what the tool does, how it differs, what it returns, when to use it, and when not to. The detail level is appropriate for a tool with no output schema.

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 is remarkably complete. It explains routing, extraction constraints, return fields, refusal reasons, use cases, sibling differences, and cost tradeoffs. There is no critical information an agent would need to select and invoke this tool correctly that is omitted.

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 schema description coverage is 100%, so the schema already fully documents the 'question' parameter and its aliases. The description does not need to add parameter-level detail, and the baseline of 3 applies. It adds no parameter semantics beyond the schema, but none are missing.

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 a specific mode: a hallucination-resistant answer generator for high-stakes reads. It names the verb ('answer'), the resource (Pipeworx tools/data), and explicitly distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta by describing its stricter evidence-only extraction 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?

Usage guidance is explicit and actionable: use when answers will be quoted, cited, or acted on, and when the agent must not invent facts (financial, legal, medical, public statements). It also gives a clear alternative rule: prefer ask_pipeworx for casual lookups because grounded mode costs an 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 Zendesk 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, especially the Pipeworx query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim) which all provide factual answers, making it unclear which to use. The set also mixes Zendesk tools with a large number of prediction market and data tools, creating confusion.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: Zendesk tools use 'zd_' prefix, Pipeworx tools use various prefixes like 'ask_', 'bet_', 'compare_', etc., and some are named with full words. There is no uniform pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is high for a server named 'Zendesk', especially since only 5 are Zendesk-specific. The majority are unrelated to Zendesk, indicating the tool count is inappropriate for the implied purpose.

Completeness1/5

For a Zendesk server, the tool set is severely incomplete, offering only basic CRUD operations (get, list, search for tickets and users). Missing essential Zendesk features like ticket creation, update, delete, or macros, while containing many irrelevant tools from other domains.

Resources