Skip to main content
Glama

animequotes

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 provide no behavioral hints (all false), so the description carries full burden. It discloses rate limiting (5 per identifier per day), cost (free, doesn't count against quota), the claim_token workflow for follow-up, and that the team reads digests daily. This goes well beyond what annotations offer and gives the agent important non-obvious context.

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 longer than the calibration exemplar but every sentence serves a distinct purpose: scope, use cases, exclusions, follow-up mechanism, rate limits, and cost. It is front-loaded with the core action and progressively adds necessary context. Could be slightly tightened, but it remains efficient for the complexity it covers.

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 params, all optional, nested objects, and no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the return flow (claim_token and later status reading), what to include, what not to include, rate limits, and cost. It leaves no critical gaps for an agent trying to decide when and how to invoke the tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the claim_token workflow ('Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})'), which clarifies parameter purpose beyond schema text. It also contextualizes how to structure feedback, though it doesn't deeply elaborate each parameter.

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 the tool's purpose: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It enumerates specific scenarios (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and explicitly scopes to tools served by this Pipeworx connection, distinguishing it from other feedback channels. This is a specific verb+resource with clear scope.

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 guidance: '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).' It also gives clear exclusions: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead,' plus what to avoid ('don't paste the end-user's prompt'). This is comprehensive usage direction.

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

All animequotes 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 occupy blurred boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route questions to overlapping data pipelines, and the Polymarket family (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) heavily overlaps in purpose. Individual descriptions are detailed, but an agent must read long text to avoid misselection, especially when the three anime-quote tools are surrounded by unrelated tool families.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case and many begin with verbs (ask_, search_, resolve_, scan_, compare_, validate_), but several are noun-first or noun-phrase names like entity_profile, bet_research, random_quote, recent_alerts, recent_changes, and pipeworx_trending. There is no chaotic camelCase/snake_case mix, but the convention is not applied consistently enough for a predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy for any single-purpose server, and the vast majority have nothing to do with anime quotes—they are Pipeworx data tools, prediction-market tools, subscription tools, memory tools, and AI-audit tools. For a server named animequotes, only random_quote, search_by_anime, and search_by_character fit the stated purpose, making the count wildly disproportionate.

Completeness3/5

For the apparent anime-quote domain, random_quote, search_by_anime, and search_by_character cover basic lookup but leave notable gaps: no search by quote text, no quote-by-id fetch, no ability to list all series or characters, and no pagination or metadata browsing. The unrelated tools do not fill these gaps, so the anime-quote surface is functional but incomplete.

Resources