Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Sanjose

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 safety information, so the description carries the burden. It fully discloses the claim_token return behavior, rate limiting (5/day), free nature (no quota consumption), and how feedback is processed (daily digests, roadmap signal). No contradictions.

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 but every sentence is informative. It avoids filler, though a bulleted structure would improve readability. Still appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 no output schema and a non-trivial tool with a claim_token flow, the description provides complete context: what to report, what not to report, rate limits, and post-filing follow-up. It covers all necessary operational aspects.

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 value by clarifying how to use claim_token for follow-ups and by advising users to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs rather than pasting end-user prompts, which enriches parameter understanding.

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 action verb and resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It explicitly enumerates the feedback categories (bug, feature, data_gap, praise), which distinguishes it from research-oriented sibling tools.

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 for each feedback type and an exclusion rule: only for tools served by this Pipeworx connection, not other MCP servers. Also explains how to follow up with a claim_token, giving a complete usage workflow.

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

All Arcgis Sanjose 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

While many tools have distinct purposes, there is overlap between ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, as well as multiple Polymarket and entity-related tools. Descriptions are detailed but could confuse agents on which tool to use for a specific query.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tool names use snake_case and many start with verbs, but there is inconsistency with noun-starting names like entity_profile, layer_info, and pipeworx_feedback. No strong verb_noun or other consistent pattern across the set.

Tool Count3/5

With 33 tools, the count is relatively high but could be justified for a broad data platform. However, given the server name 'Arcgis Sanjose', the number seems excessive as most tools are unrelated to ArcGIS geospatial functions.

Completeness2/5

The tool set is severely incomplete for the implied ArcGIS San Jose domain, with only 3 tools (search_datasets, layer_info, query_layer) supporting that purpose. The rest are from the Pipeworx ecosystem, creating a mismatch between server name and actual functionality.

Resources