Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Carlsbad

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Since annotations provide no safety signals (all hints false), the description carries the full burden. It discloses the claim_token flow, daily digest reading, rate limit of 5 per identifier per day, free usage without quota impact, and roadmap influence. No contradiction with annotations. This is rich behavioral context.

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?

Though the description is lengthy, every sentence delivers distinct value: purpose, use cases, exclusions, claim_token behavior, rate limits, and cost. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and flows logically. No filler or redundancy—appropriate detail for a tool with nuanced usage.

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 (claim-token follow-up, exclusions, free tier) and the absence of an output schema, the description is remarkably complete. It explains what happens upon filing, how to follow up, and what to include/exclude. The lack of an output schema is compensated by the description's mention of the claim_token and status return.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics beyond the schema: it tells users to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs and not paste end-user prompts, and clarifies that claim_token should be passed with no other arguments to read a previous report. This enriches the message and claim_token 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+resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly distinguishes this feedback tool from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or discover_tools by defining its role as a reporting channel for tool issues, gaps, and praise.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool: '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 an exclusion criterion—do not report tools from other MCP servers—and directs the user to file those elsewhere. This is textbook when/when-not guidance.

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

All Arcgis Carlsbad 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

Several tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., multiple 'ask' tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and multiple 'compare' tools (compare_entities, scan_competitor_ai_presence). Descriptions are verbose but often don't clearly distinguish when to use each, causing confusion.

Naming Consistency1/5

Naming is highly inconsistent: snake_case (ai_visibility_check), camelCase (polymarket_fill_risk), and arbitrary prefixes (scan_, generate_, etc.). No consistent verb_noun pattern; e.g., 'query_layer' vs 'search_datasets' vs 'layer_info' all involve data retrieval but use different patterns.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is excessive for a server purportedly focused on ArcGIS Carlsbad. Many tools are unrelated (e.g., polymarket betting, npm package scanning). The core ArcGIS functionality could be covered by 3-5 tools, but the server is bloated with Pipeworx utilities.

Completeness3/5

The ArcGIS portion lacks update/delete capabilities and is limited to querying. The Pipeworx tools cover a broad range of data sources but introduce many dependencies and meta-tools, creating a cluttered surface with dead ends (e.g., tools requiring paid accounts without fallback).

Resources