Skip to main content
Glama

Apology

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?

With all annotation hints false (no read-only, no idempotency, etc.), the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the claim_token mechanism for later follow-up, rate limits (5/day), that it is free and does not count against quota, and the operational impact (daily digests, roadmap signal). These details go well beyond what annotations provide.

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 dense paragraph, but every sentence earns its place. It flows logically: purpose → when to use → exclusion boundary → identification tip → content guidance → token mechanics → transparency (rate limit/quota). No filler, no redundancy, and front-loaded with the most critical information.

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?

For a medium-complexity tool with 4 params, no output schema, and weak annotations, the description covers nearly all necessary context: return behavior (claim_token, follow-up read), usage boundaries, and operational constraints. It does not detail the exact response shape for a successful submission, but the token-based follow-up mechanism is the key output and is clearly explained.

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?

The schema already has 100% parameter coverage, but the description adds valuable context: it instructs users on how to frame the 'message' parameter (be specific, avoid pasting end-user prompts) and explains the 'claim_token' parameter's round-trip use (pass it back to read status/resolution). This enriches the raw schema definitions.

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 immediately enumerates the types of feedback (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and distinguishes this tool from sibling research/query tools by explicitly limiting it to feedback about Pipeworx-served tools only.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance (wrong/stale data, missing tool, praise) and when-not-to-use guidance (feedback for tools from other MCP servers, with a clear directive to file with that server instead). It even gives a heuristic for identifying Pipeworx tools, making the decision boundary unambiguous.

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

All Apology 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
Disambiguation2/5

ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-duplicates with beta explicitly identical to the stable version, causing potential misselection. ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap heavily, and resolve_entity/discover_tools/ask_pipeworx all serve lookup purposes. Many tools are distinct, but the boundaries around the core query tools are blurry.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent: mostly snake_case but mixed verb styles (ask_pipeworx vs pipeworx_feedback vs resolve_entity), brand prefixes applied irregularly, and no uniform convention (e.g., subscribe/unsubscribe/list_subscriptions vs forget/remember/recall vs polymarket_arbitrage/edges/edge_tracker). Some names are descriptive, but the set lacks a predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is above the 25 threshold for a heavy surface, and the server mixes unrelated domains (data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, apology generation). While a large data platform could justify many tools, the random inclusions (apology_generate, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency) suggest a lack of scoping. Several tools could be consolidated without loss.

Completeness4/5

For the dominant data-research/prediction-market domain, coverage is strong: lookup, grounded verification, research, entity resolution, comparison, arbitrage scanning, fill risk, subscriptions, memory, and discovery are all present. Minor gaps exist (no direct account management beyond subscriptions, no tool to modify stored memories), but agents can mostly achieve their goals. The stray non-domain tools do not hurt completeness of the core platform.

Resources