Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Lubbock

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 sparse (all false), but the description adds rich behavioral context: claim_token workflow, rate limit (5 per identifier per day), free and not counted against quota, daily digest reading, and roadmap impact. It also explains what happens without an account, going beyond the structured 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 contributes unique value: purpose, use cases, exclusions, token mechanics, rate limits, cost. No fluff or repetition; it builds logically from what the tool does to how to use it.

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?

With no output schema, the description still explains the return concept (claim_token for anonymous filings). It covers prerequisites (none), special cases (claim_token-only invocation), limitations (rate limit), and operational details. The tool's full behavior is documented without leaving major gaps.

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% and includes detailed descriptions for all parameters. The description enhances this by illustrating the claim_token usage (`pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})`) and emphasizing that filing is possible without an account. It also reinforces the type enum meanings, adding a bit beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 states a specific purpose: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It explicitly enumerates use cases (bug, feature, data_gap, praise), and its resource (Pipeworx tools) is clear. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or discover_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?

Provides explicit when-to-use instructions: bugs, missing features, data gaps, and praise. It also gives a clear exclusion: 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection' and directs users to file elsewhere for non-Pipeworx tools. Includes handling for uncertainty ('Not sure? 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 Lubbock 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

Many tools overlap in purpose, particularly the ask_pipeworx variants (stable, beta, grounded) and deep_research, making it difficult for an agent to choose correctly. Additionally, the Arcgis-specific tools are buried under numerous general Pipeworx tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), but there are minor inconsistencies like ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence and the simpler Arcgis tool names.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the server is overloaded, especially since the majority are Pipeworx meta-tools unrelated to the Arcgis Lubbock purpose. A well-scoped ArcGIS server would have far fewer tools.

Completeness2/5

For an ArcGIS server, only three tools directly serve that purpose (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer), lacking editing, analysis, or visualization capabilities. The remaining tools address a completely different domain.

Resources