Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Washingtoncomn

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 minimal (all false hints), so the description carries the burden. It discloses rate limits (5/day), that it is free and quota-free, and describes the claim_token lifecycle. This goes well beyond the structured annotations and sets accurate expectations.

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 thorough but presented as a dense wall of text; every sentence earns its place, though bullet points would improve scannability. Front-loaded purpose and tight content justify a 4 rather than 3.

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 and a nested object parameter, the description covers key operational details: scoping to Pipeworx tools, follow-up token flow, rate limiting, and the team's review cadence. It proactively addresses likely agent questions, making it effectively complete.

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%, providing a baseline of 3. The description adds value by explaining how claim_token should be used ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})') and by advising not to paste end-user prompts, which enriches the message parameter semantics.

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') and enumerates the exact categories (bug, feature, data_gap, praise). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by stating it is ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection, unlike other MCP servers.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided for each feedback type, plus a clear exclusion: reports about tools from other MCP servers should be filed elsewhere. It also explains follow-up usage via claim_token and rate limits, giving complete decision rules.

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

All Arcgis Washingtoncomn 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

The ArcGIS tools (query_layer, layer_info, search_datasets) are clearly distinct, but the Pipeworx family has heavy overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and discover_tools can all appear as plausible entry points for a similar data lookup task. The memory and subscription tools are well separated, but the router-style tools create real ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Almost all tools use lowercase snake_case names with a verb-first pattern (ask_pipeworx, query_layer, subscribe, remember) or clear noun descriptors (entity_profile, layer_info, polymarket_edges). A few names are more cryptic (recall, forget, resolve_entity) but they still follow the same style. No mixed camelCase or inconsistent separators.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well beyond what the apparent ArcGIS Washington County purpose needs; only three tools actually concern GIS data. The rest are a broad Pipeworx research suite, memory, subscriptions, feedback, and AI-visibility probes. This makes the surface feel like two or three unrelated servers grafted together rather than one scoped package.

Completeness3/5

For the ArcGIS slice, you can discover, inspect, and query layers, but there is no write or create capability, no field-wise editing, no map/feature export, and no feature-level CRUD. The Pipeworx data side is more comprehensive, but the overall server confuses its purpose. The mixed-domain coverage leaves the GIS part only a thin slice of the offered features.

Resources