Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Charlotte

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?

Annotations are minimal (all hints false) and don't reveal the behavioral traits disclosed here. The description adds valuable context: the tool returns a claim_token when filing without an account, supports later lookup with that token, is rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, is free, and doesn't count against quota. It also warns not to paste end-user prompts, which is a behavioral constraint beyond annotations.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place: it covers what, when, exclusions, claim_token behavior, rate limit, and quota exemption. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then layers details logically. No redundant or filler sentences.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains the return behavior (claim_token on filing, later status/change lookup) and the feedback workflow. It also provides operational context (daily reads, roadmap impact, rate limit, no quota) that an agent needs to decide whether to invoke the tool and what to expect. For a feedback tool with several behavioral nuances, the description is complete.

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 adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining when to use each feedback type (e.g., 'bug = something broke or returned wrong data') and by illustrating the claim_token usage pattern ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})'). It also adds the practical constraint on message content ('don't paste the end-user's prompt'). This raises it above baseline, though much of the schema's own descriptions are already detailed.

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 clear, specific verb+resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It explicitly enumerates the feedback categories (bug, feature/data_gap, praise), and this tool is clearly distinct from siblings, which are research/query tools. The scope is precisely bounded to Pipeworx connection tools.

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 gives 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 provides a critical exclusion: if the tool is from another MCP server, file with that server instead, and tells how to disambiguate ('Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists').

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

All Arcgis Charlotte 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 are easy to confuse: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, deep_research overlaps heavily with ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded, and the six polymarket_* tools have closely related purposes. ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence also overlap, making selection error-prone.

Naming Consistency4/5

Almost all tools use lowercase snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (query_layer, resolve_entity, scan_dependency, validate_claim). A few noun-style names like entity_profile, layer_info, and pipeworx_trending deviate slightly, but the overall convention is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well past the heavy threshold, and the server is named 'Arcgis Charlotte' while only three tools actually relate to ArcGIS. The rest form a sprawling Pipeworx research, prediction-market, subscription, and memory toolkit, which creates a severe scope mismatch.

Completeness2/5

For the Pipeworx data side the surface is quite thorough, but for the declared ArcGIS Charlotte purpose it is thin: search_datasets, layer_info, and query_layer provide read-only access with no update/delete, analysis, or dataset management. The tool set therefore has a significant gap relative to its stated domain.

Resources