Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Palmbeach

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

A4.7/5.0
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 rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), the claim_token mechanism for reading resolution, the fact that digests are read daily, and that it's free and doesn't count against quota. It also states behavioral scope (only Pipeworx tools). These are significant behavioral traits beyond the schema and annotations, adding real transparency about side effects and constraints.

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 longer than average (9 sentences) but every sentence earns its place: purpose, when-to-use, exclusion, claim_token usage, rate limit, and quota impact. It is front-loaded with the main action and structured logically. While it could be slightly tightened, it avoids redundancy and remains highly scannable.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with 4 parameters (one nested object) and no output schema, the description explains the key response element (claim_token) and how to use it for follow-up. It also mentions rate limits and scope. Minor gap: it doesn't clarify what happens when filing with an account (whether a claim_token is still returned) or what the immediate response looks like, but overall it covers the essential context for correct usage.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics beyond the schema: it explains how to use claim_token ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})') and gives content guidance for the message field ('Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt'). This lifts the score above baseline because it clarifies usage nuances not evident in the schema alone.

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 clear statement: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It uses a specific verb ('tell') and identifies the resource (Pipeworx team). This is further distinguished from siblings by explicitly limiting scope to Pipeworx connection tools and stating exclusions (other MCP servers). No other sibling tool handles feedback, so it is clearly differentiated.

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 guidance: '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).' It also gives a clear when-not-to-use condition: tools from other MCP servers should be filed elsewhere. Additional guidance on what to include (describe in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, don't paste user prompt) and how to use claim_token is provided, making alternatives and exclusions unambiguous.

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

All Arcgis Palmbeach 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer data questions, while discover_tools and suggest_questions both serve discovery. The three ArcGIS tools are distinct but are drowned out by the unrelated Pipeworx and prediction-market tools, making it hard to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are mostly snake_case but mix verb_noun (query_layer, search_datasets, remember), noun_noun (layer_info, entity_profile), and less conventional forms (search_within, generate_llms_txt). The naming is readable and not chaotic, but there is no single consistent pattern across the set.

Tool Count1/5

34 tools is excessive for a server named 'Arcgis Palmbeach'. Only 3 tools are GIS-related (search_datasets, query_layer, layer_info); the other 31 are unrelated Pipeworx data, prediction-market, and memory utilities. The count grossly mismatches the server's apparent purpose.

Completeness1/5

For the stated ArcGIS/Palm Beach County GIS purpose, the tool surface is severely incomplete: only search, query, and layer-schema lookup exist, with no data editing, feature operations, or map-service management. While the Pipeworx domain is heavily covered, that is not what the server name promises, so the surface is a poor fit.

Resources