Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Fairfield

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even though annotations are all false, the description thoroughly discloses behavior: the claim_token workflow, rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), the fact that it's free and doesn't count against quota, and the team's daily digest process. It adds substantial context beyond the annotations without contradicting them.

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 average (~150 words) but each sentence earns its place: purpose, usage, exclusions, token mechanics, rate limits, and free status. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the most important information, though slightly verbose.

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?

Given 4 params, no output schema, and a side-effectful tool, the description covers the key aspects: what triggers use, what to include (tool/pack context), what the response yields (claim_token), and how to follow up. It could mention immediate response status for direct submissions, but overall it is sufficiently complete for an agent to use confidently.

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 value by explaining the claim_token parameter's purpose and usage pattern in detail ('pass it back later... to read whether it was fixed'), and by reinforcing the enum semantics (bug, feature, data_gap, praise). This exceeds 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 clear, specific verb+resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It distinguishes this tool from all siblings by focusing on feedback/reporting rather than research or queries, leaving no ambiguity about its function.

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 scenarios: '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).' Also gives a clear exclusion for tools from other MCP servers and explains how to identify Pipeworx tools, making alternative paths explicit.

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

All Arcgis Fairfield 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

Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and also multiple Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage). Descriptions try to differentiate but the boundaries are unclear, causing confusion.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: some use snake_case (ask_pipeworx, query_layer), some use descriptive phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes), and there is no consistent verb_noun pattern. The variety makes it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

33 tools is far too many for a server named 'Arcgis Fairfield', as most tools are unrelated to GIS or Fairfield (e.g., npm dependency checks, prediction markets, AI visibility). The tool count severely mismatches the server's purported scope.

Completeness1/5

The server's stated purpose is ArcGIS Fairfield, but only 3 tools (layer_info, query_layer, search_datasets) relate to that domain. Critical GIS operations like updating features or managing services are missing, while the vast majority of tools are for other domains.

Resources