Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Montana

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With all annotations set to false, the description carries the full burden. It discloses the claim_token flow (filing without an account returns a token; passing it back later reads status), rate limiting (5 per identifier per day), quota impact (free, doesn't count), and the team's daily digest cycle. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond what annotations convey.

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 appropriately sized for the tool's complexity and stays front-loaded: it opens with the core purpose, then flows into use cases, exclusions, mechanics, and operational details. Every sentence carries useful information—none are filler. The rate limit and quota note are concise and relevant.

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 explains what a filing returns (a claim_token) and how to later retrieve status/changes. It covers the tool's key behavioral edges (scope limitation to Pipeworx, rate limits, quota) and complements the rich input schema. For a feedback tool of this complexity, the description is fully complete.

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 strong individual descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining the claim_token round-trip pattern (e.g., 'pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})') and giving content guidance for the message field (don't paste end-user prompt, be specific). While the schema already covers basics, this supplementary context helps the agent invoke parameters correctly.

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+resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly distinguishes this feedback tool from siblings like ask_pipeworx or discover_tools, and explicitly enumerates the categories (bug, feature, data_gap, praise).

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data... when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog... or when something worked surprisingly well'). It also gives a strong when-not-to-use rule: do not report tools from other MCP servers, and tells the user to file those elsewhere. Additional instructions (describe in terms of Pipeworx tools, don't paste user prompt) further clarify usage.

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

All Arcgis Montana 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several clusters of similar tools exist: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (identical right now), and ask_pipeworx_grounded are easily confused, and the many polymarket_* tools overlap heavily. However, the extremely detailed descriptions usually clarify the specific intent, so an agent can often pick correctly.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are uniformly snake_case and mostly follow verb_noun or a recognizable prefix pattern (ask_, polymarket_, pipeworx_). There are a few noun-phrase exceptions like layer_info and entity_profile, but the style is consistent enough that naming is not a major source of confusion.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy for any server, and especially for one named 'Arcgis Montana' where only three tools (search_datasets, query_layer, layer_info) relate to GIS. Most of the surface is a general-purpose data/analytics API, making the count feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

Relative to the implied ArcGIS Montana purpose, the surface is severely incomplete: it only supports searching and querying datasets, with no create/update/delete or administrative capabilities. The Pipeworx functionality is broad, but the GIS side is a thin slice, leaving obvious gaps for geospatial workflows.

Resources