Skip to main content
Glama

Api Ninjas

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?

The annotations are all false and provide almost no behavioral information, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses critical behaviors: rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), the claim_token flow for anonymous submissions and later status checking, free usage ('doesn't count against your tool-call quota'), and the team's daily digests affecting roadmap. This goes well beyond what the annotations or schema indicate, giving the agent a clear model of side effects and lifecycle.

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 relatively long but every sentence contributes unique information: purpose, usage triggers, exclusionary scope, content rules, token mechanics, rate limits, and quota impact. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then details. The length is justified by the tool's complexity (two modes, restrictions, and token flow), though it could be tightened slightly (e.g., 'The team reads digests daily...' is motivational rather than operational). Overall, it is dense but not wasteful.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly covers all necessary context: what the tool does, when to use it, when not to, how to format the message, the two invocation modes (create and check status), rate limits, and what happens after filing. It also explains the significance of feedback ('signal directly affects roadmap'), which helps the agent understand the tool's impact. No critical gaps remain for an agent to invoke this tool 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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description does add some value beyond the schema: it clarifies the semantic distinction between the two modes (submit feedback with type/context/message vs. check status by passing only claim_token), gives a concrete invocation example for claim_token, and adds a content guideline ('Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt') that is not present in the parameter descriptions. While not a lot, these are meaningful additions, earning above baseline.

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 feedback tool from all siblings by enumerating the exact feedback categories (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and stating it is for Pipeworx tools only. No other sibling tool serves this purpose, so there is no ambiguity.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit and actionable: '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 a clear exclusion and alternative: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server... we cannot fix it... file it with that server instead.' Additional rules about describing the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs and not pasting the end-user's prompt provide concrete when-to/how-to guidance beyond the schema.

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

All Api Ninjas 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct roles, but there is meaningful overlap among the question-answering family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and among the Polymarket analysis tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_fill_risk). The long descriptions help separate them, but the boundaries are still subtle enough that an agent could easily pick the wrong variant.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming is mostly snake_case and generally follows a verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity, scan_dependency, validate_claim). Deviations like entity_profile, recent_alerts, recent_changes, and bare verbs (forget, recall, remember, subscribe, unsubscribe) are minor and do not seriously harm predictability.

Tool Count3/5

31 tools is heavy for a single server and suggests the surface is a bundled platform (data queries, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI-visibility checks) rather than one tightly scoped domain. Each tool has a rational purpose, but the sheer count plus several meta/didactic tools makes the set feel somewhat oversized.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are well covered: entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, grounded lookup, fact-checking, deep research, memory CRUD, and subscription lifecycle. Gaps are minor. There are no update operations for subscriptions, and some optional data sources degrade softly, but agents can accomplish the intended research, monitoring, and memory tasks without dead ends.

Resources