Skip to main content
Glama

Ai Briefing

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. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare non-readonly/non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavior: rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free/no quota impact, daily digest review, and the claim_token round-trip mechanism for checking resolution status. This goes beyond the annotations. Slight gap is not specifying any other side effects of submitting feedback, but none are likely.

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 not bloated; every sentence carries operational guidance (when, what, exclusions, token mechanics, SLA, rate limits, cost). It is front-loaded with purpose and reads logically. It loses one point only because it could be trimmed slightly without losing critical info, but it remains easy to parse.

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 (categories, exclusions, token flow, rate limits, cost), the description covers all of it. There is no output schema, but the description explains what the return value will be: a claim_token on filing, or status on later lookup. This is complete for an agent to invoke and follow up correctly.

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 descriptions already cover all four parameters, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds extra useful semantics by explaining how to use claim_token in a follow-up call ('pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})') and by telling users to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs rather than pasting prompts, which enriches the 'message' and 'context' parameters.

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 opens with a specific verb and resource ('Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist'), making it unmistakably a feedback submission tool. It further distinguishes itself from all sibling tools by being the only one that communicates feedback to the Pipeworx team, and it even clarifies scope by excluding other MCP servers.

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?

Explicit use cases are enumerated ('Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data... feature/data_gap... praise'). It also provides a clear exclusion and alternative: if the tool is not from this Pipeworx connection, file it with that server instead. This is about as clear as usage guidance gets.

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

All Ai Briefing 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple tools for querying Pipeworx data (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim) and numerous tools for AI news/tools (get_ai_news, get_ai_toolbelt, get_briefing, get_model_landscape, etc.). This will cause an agent to frequently misselect the appropriate tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern in snake_case (e.g., compare_entities, discover_tools, get_briefing). However, a few deviate like 'bet_research' (noun_verb) and 'what_happened' (phrase), but overall the pattern is largely consistent.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is excessive for a server called 'Ai Briefing', which suggests a focused purpose. The tool count spans multiple domains (AI visibility, Pipeworx queries, Polymarket betting, memory, subscriptions) making it feel overstuffed and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers many aspects of its broad domain (querying, comparing, subscribing, memory), but there are notable gaps: no tool for modifying subscriptions, no user profile management, and the AI news tools overlap rather than cover distinct needs.

Resources