Skip to main content
Glama

Acled

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Send Pipeworx Feedback

pipeworx_feedback

Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist. Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug), when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog (feature/data_gap), or when something worked surprisingly well (praise). ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection — if the tool came from a different MCP server in your client (another vendor's Gmail, Splunk, Slack, etc. connector), we cannot fix it and reporting it here only delays you; file it with that server instead. Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists. Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt. Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"}) to read whether it was fixed and what changed. The team reads digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap. Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day. Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeNobug = something broke or returned wrong data. feature = a new tool or capability you wish existed. data_gap = data Pipeworx does not currently expose. praise = positive note. other = anything else.
contextNoOptional structured context: which tool, pack, or vertical this relates to.
messageNoYour feedback in plain text. Be specific (which tool, what error, what data was missing). 1-2 sentences typical, 2000 chars max.
claim_tokenNoRead the reply to a report you filed earlier: pass the `pwfb_…` token that filing returned, with no other arguments. Returns the status and, once resolved, what actually changed.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / claim_token
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Read the reply to a report you filed earlier: pass the `pwfb_…` token that filing returned, with no other arguments. Returns the status and, once resolved, what actually changed.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "type",
-  "message"
-]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the rate limit (5 per day), that it's free, does not count against tool-call quota, returns a claim_token when no account is used, and that the team reads digests daily. It also clarifies that only feedback about Pipeworx-provided tools is actionable. This exceeds what annotations convey and manages expectations effectively.

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 long but information-dense. Every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, use cases, exclusions, formatting, token flow, rate limits, and cost. It could be tightened, but it is structured logically and front-loaded with the primary purpose. The slight verbosity is justified by the amount of necessary guidance.

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?

With 4 parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no safety hints in annotations, the description flawlessly compensates. It explains the output (claim_token), when and how to use each parameter, limitations, and the feedback loop. It covers all essential aspects an agent needs to invoke the tool correctly and understand consequences.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the semantics of claim_token (how to use it to check status), the requirement to phrase feedback in terms of Pipeworx tools, and the typical message length. It doesn't add new parameter names, but it deepens the meaning, justifying a 4.

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 states a specific action ('Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist') and identifies the resource (Pipeworx tools/packs). It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on feedback reporting rather than asking questions or discovering tools, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use criteria: bug, feature/data_gap, praise. It also specifies when NOT to use it (for tools from other MCP servers) and instructs users to file with the appropriate server instead. Formatting guidance (describe in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, don't paste prompt) and the claim_token workflow are clearly explained.

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

All Acled 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially the Pipeworx query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) which all serve similar data retrieval needs. Additionally, entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes overlap in providing company information. Polymarket tools also have overlapping analysis functions. This can cause confusion for agents.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are inconsistent in style and convention. Some use underscores (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx), others are single words (forget, recall), and many lack a clear verb_noun pattern (pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges). This mixture of naming conventions reduces predictability.

Tool Count3/5

With 32 tools, the count is on the higher side but appropriate given the broad scope covering multiple domains (Pipeworx data, Polymarket betting, ACLED events, npm scanning, memory, etc.). However, some areas have only one or two tools, which feels sparse, and the overall set could be trimmed or better organized.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers many domains but has notable gaps. For ACLED, only search and count tools exist without any update/delete capabilities. For Pipeworx, the tools are heavily read-focused with no apparent write operations. The broad scope makes completeness hard to assess, but some obvious lifecycle operations are missing.

Resources