Skip to main content
Glama

Attom

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the false annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: filing returns a claim_token for later status checks, rate limiting ('5 per identifier per day'), cost/free status, and that the team reads digests daily. It also explains the consequence of misreporting other servers ('only delays you').

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?

Although the description is relatively long, every sentence provides distinct, actionable value: purpose, use cases, exclusion, phrasing, token mechanics, team review, and rate limit. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and maintains a logical structure.

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 the tool has no output schema, the description compensates by explaining what is returned (claim_token) and how to use it for later resolution. It also covers rate limits and the fact that it doesn't count against tool-call quota, making it complete for a feedback/reporting tool.

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?

While the schema already documents all parameters at 100% coverage, the description adds crucial meaning: it explains the claim_token round-trip flow with the example `pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})`, and gives guidance on the message parameter (describe in terms of tools/packs, not end-user prompts).

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+resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly differentiates from siblings by positioning itself as the feedback channel for Pipeworx tools and explicitly excludes feedback for 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use scenarios (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and when-not-to-use ('if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead'). It also provides phrasing guidance ('Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt').

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

All Attom 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now, and ask_pipeworx_grounded shares the same router. The universal ask_pipeworx router also subsumes many domain-specific tools (attom_*, entity_profile, etc.), making it unclear when to use the specialist tools versus the catch-all.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and mostly descriptive, but conventions vary: ask_* and attom_* prefixes coexist with bare verbs (remember, forget, subscribe), noun phrases (entity_profile, polymarket_edges), and adjective-prefixed names (recent_alerts, recent_changes). The pattern is readable but not uniform.

Tool Count2/5

39 tools is well over the 25+ threshold for a heavy surface, especially for a server named 'Attom' that also includes memory, subscriptions, feedback, npm scanning, and AI-visibility tools beyond real estate. Many tools could be consolidated (e.g., the three ask_pipeworx variants, the six polymarket tools).

Completeness4/5

The real estate domain is well covered (search, detail, AVM, rental AVM, sales history, trends, assessment, schools), and the broader data platform includes discovery, grounded answers, entity profiles, comparisons, claim validation, subscriptions, and memory. Minor gaps exist only around edge features like OAuth-gated subscription persistence.

Resources