Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Johnsoncity

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.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the non-account claim_token return, how to check status later, rate limiting ('5 per identifier per day'), and that it doesn't count against tool-call quota. It also clarifies that feedback is read daily and influences roadmap, giving a clear picture of 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Though lengthy, every sentence earns its place: purpose, eligibility, exclusions, token flow, rate limit, and quota impact. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then logically flows through instructions. No redundant or vague wording.

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?

For a two-mode tool without an output schema, this description is highly complete. It explains what happens when filing (returns claim_token), how to retrieve status later, what the team does with feedback, and practical constraints (rate limit, quota). No critical operational context is missing.

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% with rich per-parameter descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the two invocation modes: filing (type/context/message) vs. reading a claim (claim_token alone with no other arguments). It also reinforces that context should reference Pipeworx tool/pack names, which goes beyond the schema.

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 enumerates the feedback types (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and distinguishes itself from sibling research/subscription tools. The dual-mode behavior (filing vs. claiming with a token) is also explained up front.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it ('Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data...', 'when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog...', 'when something worked surprisingly well') and when not to ('ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection... if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead'). It also warns against pasting end-user prompts and explains the claim_token follow-up workflow.

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

All Arcgis Johnsoncity 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

Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route questions to similar data sources, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now. The many polymarket tools also blur together despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names are snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern: ask_pipeworx, bet_research, entity_profile, layer_info, pipeworx_trending, recent_changes, and validate_claim follow different stylistic conventions. The pattern is readable but feels like several naming vocabularies were merged.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well over the comfortable range and most of them are unrelated to the apparent ArcGIS Johnson City purpose. Only search_datasets, layer_info, and query_layer actually serve GIS needs; the remaining 31 tools form a sprawling Pipeworx meta-platform bolted onto the same server.

Completeness3/5

The ArcGIS portion covers discover-schema-query reasonably well for read-only open data, and the Pipeworx side has broad coverage with subscriptions, memory, feedback, and research workflows. However, the surface is defined by two unrelated domains, making it hard to judge true completeness for any one stated purpose.

Resources