Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Glasgow

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?

With all annotations set to false, the description carries full behavioral disclosure. It reveals that filing without an account returns a claim_token, that the token can be used later to check resolution status, that rate-limiting is 5 per identifier per day, that it is free, and that the team reads digests daily. This goes beyond what annotations provide and sets clear expectations for side effects.

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 long but efficiently structured, front-loading the core purpose and then covering usage, exclusions, token behavior, and rate limits in a logical flow. Every sentence contributes, though a few could be trimmed without losing value. Still, it remains highly readable and well-organized.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully covers the tool's purpose, usage triggers, exclusion criteria, token-based follow-up, rate limits, and integration context with Pipeworx. For a feedback tool with 4 parameters and nested objects, the description provides all necessary operational details. It is complete and self-contained.

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 meaningful usage context for parameters, particularly claim_token ('pass it back later... to read whether it was fixed') and message ('Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs—don't paste the end-user's prompt'). This elevates the parameter semantics above the 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 itself from sibling tools by focusing on feedback rather than research or queries. The purpose is immediately unambiguous.

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 enumerates when to use the tool: for bugs, feature requests, data gaps, and praise. It also provides a clear exclusion rule—'if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead'—and names the alternative action. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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

All Arcgis Glasgow 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently functionally identical), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all route to the same underlying catalog with only subtle differences. The Polymarket cluster (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also substantially overlaps in purpose, and the two unrelated domains (GIS vs. data/betting) make it worse.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are readable and form some predictable clusters (polymarket_* prefix, ask_pipeworx_* suffixes, subscribe/unsubscribe/list_subscriptions), but conventions are mixed: bare verbs (remember, forget, recall), noun_noun (layer_info, entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback), verb_noun (query_layer, search_datasets), and adjective_noun (deep_research, recent_alerts). No single pattern dominates, though nothing is chaotic.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the 25+ threshold for a heavy surface, and the count is not justified by the server's stated identity: only 3 of 34 tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) relate to ArcGIS Glasgow. The remaining 31 tools belong to several unrelated domains (Pipeworx data querying, Polymarket betting, AI visibility, memory, npm scanning), making the effective scope far too broad.

Completeness2/5

For the server's named ArcGIS Glasgow domain, the surface is thin: search, schema inspection, and query are present, but there is no way to list all datasets, no spatial querying, and no write/update capability. Meanwhile the 31 non-GIS tools create a sprawling second server's worth of functionality, so the set as a whole has no coherent domain whose coverage can be judged complete.

Resources