Skip to main content
Glama

archive

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. Added

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations provide no behavioral hints (all false), so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the claim_token round-trip workflow, rate limits ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), cost ('Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota'), and what happens after filing ('team reads digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap'). It also scopes the tool to this Pipeworx connection, adding critical contextual transparency.

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 longer than average but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then systematically covers when to use, exclusions, claim_token handling, and operational details (rate limit, cost). There is no fluff or redundancy; the length is justified by 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?

The tool has four parameters, a nested context object, and no output schema, so the description must explain the full context. It does so thoroughly: it explains the feedback types, the claim_token read-back mechanism, the scope restriction, and the daily digest/roadmap impact. It even advises on message content. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to invoke this correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Despite 100% schema coverage, the description adds substantial semantic value: it explains the claim_token pattern ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"}) to read whether it was fixed'), instructs users to 'Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt,' and maps type categories to usage scenarios. This goes well beyond the raw 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 specific verb and resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling research tools by defining the feedback scope (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and explicitly excludes feedback about other servers. This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's role.

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 criteria: '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).' It also gives a clear exclusion: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead,' and offers a fallback for uncertainty ('Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists'). This is ideal usage guidance.

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

All archive 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
Disambiguation2/5

The ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx / ask_pipeworx_beta / ask_pipeworx_grounded / deep_research) has significant boundary blurring—ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly'—and the six prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) have heavily overlapping edge-detection purposes. Only the archive, memory, and subscription families are cleanly delineated.

Naming Consistency3/5

There are consistent family prefixes (ask_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*) and clean pluralized lists (list_files, list_subscriptions), but the full set mixes bare verbs (remember, recall, forget, search), nouns (entity_profile), and varying patterns (bet_research vs compare_entities, search vs search_within vs recent_changes). Readable in clusters, but no single naming convention binds the set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is heavy, and the count is fattened by five distinct product areas—data routing, prediction markets, archive.org access, memory, and subscriptions—that have little to do with each other or with the server name 'archive'. It sits in the 25+ heavy zone even before honoring the mismatch between its name and the sprawl of its purpose.

Completeness3/5

Individual subdomains are well-covered: the memory trio (remember/recall/forget), subscription lifecycle (subscribe/unsubscribe/list_subscriptions/recent_alerts), and archive lineup (search/get_metadata/list_files/wayback_check) are each complete, and extra machinery like pipeworx_feedback and recent_changes shows domain care. But the unifying domain is incoherent—a server named 'archive' that's also a universal data router and prediction-market toolkit—and the scope ends up both bloated and still full of gaps for any one of the intended users (e.g. no archive-item upload, no prediction-market portfolio management).

Resources