Skip to main content
Glama

zippopotam

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

A4.3/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses rich behavioral context beyond the annotations: experimental status, the fact that no candidate is currently active (last retired 2026-07-26), that it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, and that it 'falls back to nothing' but is a full working router. This complements the readOnly/idempotent hints without contradiction.

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 front-loaded with the essential beta/equivalence information and explains the current state and purpose in three sentences. There is minor redundancy between 'No candidate is active right now' and 'this currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly,' but no wasted words overall.

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?

For a question-routing tool with no output schema, the description states that the response shape is identical to ask_pipeworx, which provides enough grounding given that ask_pipeworx is a sibling tool. It also clarifies the experimental context. It does not spell out the exact return format, but the reference to the stable counterpart is adequate.

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 coverage is 100% and all parameters are documented as aliases for question. The description adds only the phrase 'same arguments' and 'same response shape,' contributing little beyond the schema. Baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as the beta version of ask_pipeworx, a universal router with identical toolset, arguments, and response shape. It clearly distinguishes this from the stable ask_pipeworx by noting it carries candidate routing improvements when under test.

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.' It also notes that results are compared against the stable router to decide what merges. However, it does not provide explicit exclusion conditions or mention ask_pipeworx_grounded as an alternative.

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

All zippopotam 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, and bet_research all route questions to the same underlying engine, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now. The polymarket_* family also has many closely-related entry points, though descriptions do help differentiate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names consistently use snake_case with descriptive verb-first patterns (ask_, lookup_, scan_, validate_, resolve_, subscribe) and a clear polymarket_ family prefix. Minor inconsistency exists between lookup_city/lookup_zipcode and resolve_entity, and between noun-style names like entity_profile vs verb-style names like compare_entities, but the overall style is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is heavy for a single server, and multiple could be consolidated: the ask_pipeworx variants and deep_research largely overlap, and the memory/subscription categories could be collapsed. For a data-platform gateway the breadth is arguably justified, but the visible redundancy makes the surface feel bloated rather than well-scoped.

Completeness4/5

The core domains are well covered: question answering has multiple modes, entity lookup has resolution and profiling, prediction markets have research/edge/arb/fill-risk coverage, and the memory (remember/recall/forget) and subscription (subscribe/list/unsubscribe/recent_alerts) lifecycles are complete. Minor gaps exist such as no direct tool to fetch a pipeworx:// record by URI, relying instead on MCP resources.

Resources