Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Princewilliam

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: filing returns a claim_token if no account, the token can be used later to read status/changes, the team reads digests daily, and it's free and doesn't count against quota. It doesn't explicitly state whether the feedback record persists or how it is stored, but the disclosed behavior is sufficient for an agent to understand side effects and follow-up semantics.

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 a single dense paragraph of about 130 words, but every sentence earns its place (purpose, when-to-use, exclusions, claim_token flow, rate limit, quota note). It could be broken into bullet points for readability, but it is not bloated or redundant. The information density is high and appropriately front-loaded.

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 fully explains what the tool returns (a claim_token when no account, and status/changes when claim_token is passed). It also covers rate limits, quota impact, and the acceptable scope of feedback. For a 4-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description is remarkably complete and leaves no major unanswered questions for an agent.

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 parameters are already well documented. The description adds extra value by explaining the claim_token lifecycle ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})'), giving guidance on what to describe in message ('in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt'), and clarifying the context structure. This goes beyond just restating the schema.

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 verb+resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It precisely defines the tool's scope and inherently distinguishes it from siblings like ask_pipeworx (which presumably answers questions) by focusing on feedback submission.

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 explains when to use the tool ('Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data...', 'when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog...'), and provides a strong exclusion: 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection... if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead.' Also mentions practical limits (rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day), giving complete guidance.

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

All Arcgis Princewilliam 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The set mixes several overlapping clusters: three ask_pipeworx variants (beta is explicitly identical to stable right now), six Polymarket tools with similar opportunity-scanning purposes, and two AI-visibility tools that duplicate each other. However, the descriptions are detailed enough that an agent can usually pick correctly, so the ambiguity is moderate rather than severe.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no single convention — some are verb_noun (query_layer, validate_claim), some noun_noun (entity_profile, layer_info), some company-prefixed clusters (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), and a few standalone verbs (forget, recall). While snake_case is consistent, the absence of a uniform verb_noun pattern across the set makes it unpredictable.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the server is oversized for its apparent purpose, and the count is even more problematic because most tools belong to a general Pipeworx/data platform while only 3 serve the 'Arcgis Princewilliam' GIS theme. The set feels like two unrelated servers merged, with many tools earning no clear place in a unified product.

Completeness2/5

The GIS side is a read-only stub (search, schema, and query) with no editing or feature-level retrieval, and the broader Pipeworx side has a notable dead end: tools return pipeworx:// citation URIs but no tool is provided to fetch those resources. The result is a surface that is simultaneously over-built in prediction markets and under-built in its namesake domain.

Resources