Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Puyallup

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?

Given annotations are all false, the description carries the full burden and succeeds. It discloses the claim_token flow, rate limiting (5/day), daily digest reading, that it's free and doesn't count against quota, and the nuance about anonymous filing versus later claiming. This goes well beyond the minimal mutation/read signals in annotations.

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 long but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then flows logically through usage nuances, behavioral details, and operational constraints. No filler or redundancy.

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 tool has 4 optional params, nested objects, and no output schema, so the description must cover all important behavior. It does: purpose, scope boundaries, claim_token return semantics, rate limit, and roadmap impact. It fully compensates for the lack of an output schema by explaining what to expect (claim_token and later status).

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the claim_token workflow (filing returns a token, passing it later reads the reply), which is not fully captured in the schema parameter descriptions. It also clarifies the type enum implicitly and adds rate-limit context. However, it doesn't add deep syntax details for the context object, so a 4 is appropriate.

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 + resource and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by scoping feedback to Pipeworx's own tools only, with explicit examples (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 (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and explicit when-not-to-use guidance (if the tool came from a different MCP server), plus a fallback heuristic for identification. It names the exact conditions for filing, making alternatives clear.

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

All Arcgis Puyallup 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all serve research questions through the same router, and the five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research form a dense prediction-market cluster. Even with detailed descriptions, an agent choosing between these near-synonyms would frequently need extra reasoning or make the wrong pick.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names mix product-prefixed verbs (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_arbitrage), generic verbs (remember, forget, recall, subscribe), and noun phrases (entity_profile, layer_info, recent_alerts). There is no consistent verb_noun or prefix convention across the set, making the tool surface feel patchwork rather than systematically named.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the count is already on the heavy side, but it is especially mismatched with the server name 'Arcgis Puyallup': only search_datasets, query_layer, and layer_info actually belong to that GIS domain. The rest are a broad Pipeworx research and prediction-market platform, so the set feels bloated and off-scope for the apparent purpose.

Completeness3/5

The ArcGIS read-only surface is minimally reasonable: search, schema inspection, and querying cover basic open-data consumption. The Pipeworx side is quite rich, with memory, subscriptions, lookups, grounded verification, and discovery, but the named GIS domain is thinly served and lacks obvious capabilities like listing all datasets or browsing layers without a keyword. Overall, coverage is uneven and hard to evaluate cleanly because the server mixes two unrelated purposes.

Resources