Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Pittsburgh

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 are all false (no hints provided), so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does this thoroughly: explains the claim_token flow for anonymous filing, token-based status retrieval, daily rate limit ('5 per identifier per day'), that it is free, and that the team reads digests daily. This goes far 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but every sentence carries unique information: purpose, use cases, exclusions, token mechanics, team behavior, rate limits, and quota. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then branches into specifics. While it could be trimmed slightly, the length is justified by the tool's conditional behavior and multiple contexts (bug/feature/praise, account vs anonymous).

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?

The description is complete for a feedback tool of this complexity. It covers all important facets: what to report, what not to report, which servers qualify, the token-based follow-up, rate limits, and that it's free. No output schema is provided, but the description explicitly mentions the return token, so the agent knows what to expect. The nested context object is documented in the schema, and the description reinforces its purpose.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds significant value beyond the schema by explaining the claim_token workflow ('Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later...') and reminding the agent not to paste the end-user's prompt. It does not elaborate on every parameter, but the schema already covers them; the extra context for claim_token lifts it above baseline.

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 tool's purpose: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It uses a specific verb ('tell' / 'send feedback') and resource (Pipeworx team), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the only feedback channel. The enumeration of feedback types (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) adds further precision.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug)...' and also explicit exclusions: 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection... if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead.' This clearly directs the agent away from inappropriate use and even helps disambiguate which tools are Pipeworx-owned.

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

All Arcgis Pittsburgh 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

Several near-duplicate tool clusters exist: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical right now), and ask_pipeworx_grounded overlap heavily, as do polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, and polymarket_kalshi_spread. The three ArcGIS tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) are distinct, but their purpose is drowned out by the unrelated Pipeworx data tools.

Naming Consistency2/5

Most names use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, search_datasets, resolve_entity), some are noun_noun (layer_info, entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback), and some are adjective_noun (recent_alerts, recent_changes). Verbs are also inconsistent across similar actions (scan_ vs check_ vs compare_, and three different polymarket_ verbs plus a bare bet_research).

Tool Count1/5

34 tools is already heavy, but the server is named Arcgis Pittsburgh and only 3 of the 34 tools relate to Pittsburgh GIS data; the other 31 belong to unrelated domains (Pipeworx data lookup, prediction markets, memory, npm auditing). This is an extreme scope mismatch — the tool count is far too high for the stated purpose and mostly irrelevant noise.

Completeness2/5

For the ArcGIS Pittsburgh domain, the surface has basic read coverage (search datasets, inspect layer schema, query records) but no update/delete/write operations and no geospatial analysis tools, which are significant gaps for a GIS server. The broader tool set is a grab bag of research, prediction-market, and memory features that don't form a coherent lifecycle for any single domain, so completeness cannot be assessed as a unified surface.

Resources