Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Longview

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?

The description adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: rate-limited to 5 per day, returns a claim_token without an account, is free and doesn't count against quota, and the team reads digests daily. These details are not available from annotations and directly inform agent decision-making.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence carries useful information, though it could be slightly tightened by moving some operational details into a more scannable format. Still, it avoids fluff and remains readable.

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 tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers the behavior: how to file, what the token means, how to check resolution, rate limits, and exclusions. It leaves no major gaps for an agent to correctly invoke the tool.

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 context for the claim_token parameter (how to reuse it to check status) and clarifies that feedback should be described in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, which helps with the 'context' and 'message' 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 clearly states the purpose: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It uses a specific verb ('tell') and resource ('Pipeworx team') and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx by focusing on feedback rather than queries.

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 (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and when-not-to-use ('if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead'). Also advises on what not to include (don't paste the end-user's prompt). 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 Longview 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Descriptions are unusually explicit about when to use each tool (single lookup vs grounded vs deep research), but the set still contains several genuinely overlapping tools: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx, scan_competitor_ai_presence wraps ai_visibility, and six polymarket_* tools share the same 'edge/arbitrage' conceptual space. An agent can usually pick the right tool but faces real ambiguity in several clusters.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are uniformly snake_case and readable, and there are coherent prefix families (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*). However the verb placement is inconsistent: verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim, discover_tools) coexists with noun-first names (recent_changes, entity_compare, layer_info, polymarket_edges), and bet_research sits outside the polymarket_* family despite being a prediction-market tool.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well past the 'feels heavy' threshold, and more importantly the set mixes what looks like three different servers: a tiny ArcGIS/Longview GIS slice (layer_info, query_layer, search_datasets), a massive general-purpose data-research platform from Pipeworx, and a Polymarket prediction-market toolkit. Most tools earn their place for the platform, but far too few belong to the named domain.

Completeness4/5

The research surface is remarkably complete: a router, grounded and beta variants, deep multi-source research, claim verification, entity/profile/change resolution, discovery and suggestion helpers, memory (remember/recall/forget), subscriptions (subscribe/unsubscribe/recent_alerts), and feedback — no obvious lifecycle dead ends. Minute gaps exist on the GIS side (no dataset editing, no metadata browsing, no named export/view ops) and a few nooks like screen- leisure tools have no progress/status endpoints, but these are workaroundable.

Resources