Skip to main content
Glama

airports

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are minimal (all hints false), so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral details: claim_token mechanics for follow-up without an account, rate limit of 5 per identifier per day, daily digest consumption, roadmap impact, and that it's free and doesn't count against tool-call quota. These details go beyond what annotations or schema provide, offering rich contextual transparency.

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 a single, well-structured paragraph that front-loads the core purpose before diving into use cases, exclusions, and operational details. Every sentence earns its place: usage criteria, MCP boundary, token mechanism, rate limit, and roadmap impact. No filler or redundancy.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (nested context object, 4 params, no output schema), the description is highly complete. It explains the return value mechanism (claim_token) and how to read status later. Minor gaps exist, such as not explicitly describing the response format for the initial filing beyond the claim_token, but the core usage is fully covered.

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% and the schema descriptions are already detailed (e.g., enums, context fields). The description adds extra semantic value by advising users to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs and not paste end-user prompts, which clarifies message content. It also explains the claim_token parameter's dual use (follow-up vs. original filing). This slightly exceeds the baseline for full schema coverage.

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.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx, discover_tools) by focusing on feedback about Pipeworx tools themselves. The purpose is unambiguous and action-oriented.

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 conditions: bug, feature/data_gap, or praise. It also gives a strong exclusion criterion: do not use for tools from other MCP servers, and provides a fallback method ('file it with that server instead'). The 'Not sure?' clarification further guides the user. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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

All airports 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have distinct purposes, but the three 'ask_pipeworx' variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) are highly similar and likely cause confusion. Additionally, the toolset mixes airport-specific tools with unrelated financial and research tools, creating ambiguity about when to use which.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools use descriptive snake_case (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx), others are single verbs (remember, forget, recall), and some include brand names (pipeworx_feedback). No clear pattern emerges across the 34 tools.

Tool Count1/5

34 tools is excessive for a server named 'airports'—only 3 tools directly relate to airports (search_airports, get_airport, calculate_distance). The majority are unrelated utilities (financial, prediction markets, memory), making the scope far too broad and unfocused.

Completeness1/5

The server severely lacks completeness for its stated airport domain: there are no tools for flights, airlines, runways, or real-time data. The other included domains (e.g., financial, prediction markets) are also incomplete, with e.g., only partial coverage of company data and no update/delete operations.

Resources