Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Peoria

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations provide no read-only/idempotent/destructive hints, so the description carries full burden. It discloses the claim_token workflow, rate limit (5 per identifier per day), free usage (doesn't count against quota), and that the team reads digests daily. This enables the agent to predict side effects and follow up correctly.

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 but every sentence adds operational value: scope, exclusions, workflow, rate limits, and practical examples. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and uses clear, scannable sentences. Minor redundancy with schema descriptions (e.g., message length) but overall efficient.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description thoroughly covers what the agent can expect (claim_token, status updates, resolution info). It also addresses the full context: which tools to report, how to describe issues, rate limiting, and what happens after filing. This is complete for a feedback tool with nested parameters and follow-up behavior.

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?

The schema already describes all 4 parameters at 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the claim_token usage pattern ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})') and elaborating on the context structure (which tool, pack, vertical). It enhances but doesn't reinvent schema information.

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 action: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly identifies the resource (Pipeworx feedback) and purpose (reporting bugs, feature gaps, praise). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or discover_tools, which serve different purposes.

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 (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and when NOT to use: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server in your client... file it with that server instead.' Also gives criteria for uncertain cases ('Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists'). 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 Peoria 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools are very similar (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and serve the same purpose with slight variations, making it hard for an agent to choose correctly. Additionally, the tool set mixes completely unrelated domains (ArcGIS geospatial vs. Pipeworx/Polymarket data), further confusing the purpose of each tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow multiple conventions: ask_pipeworx uses snake_case, while layer_info and query_layer use snake_case as well but with a different pattern. There is no consistent verb_noun pattern across the set; some are descriptive (validate_claim) while others are vague (process, run). The mix of conventions and lack of a unified naming scheme hurts predictability.

Tool Count1/5

At 34 tools, the count is excessive for a server supposedly focused on ArcGIS Peoria. Only 3 tools (layer_info, query_layer, search_datasets) are actually related to geospatial data, while the other 31 are from external services (Pipeworx, Polymarket). This mismatch suggests the server is extremely poorly scoped.

Completeness1/5

For a geospatial server, the tool set is severely incomplete. It lacks basic GIS operations like spatial filtering, editing, or analysis. The three geospatial tools only provide schema discovery and simple attribute queries. Meanwhile, the bulk of the tools cover a completely different domain (data lookup, prediction markets), leaving the core domain almost entirely unaddressed.

Resources