Skip to main content
Glama

Barcelona Events

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Although annotations signal readOnlyHint=false, the description adds substantial behavioral context: rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free and not counted against quota, returns a claim_token when no account is used, and the team reads digests daily. No contradiction with 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?

Despite being long, it is dense and front-loaded: purpose in first sentence, followed by clear usage conditions, exclusions, mechanics, and limits. Every sentence adds operational guidance (don't paste end-user prompt, naming convention, daily digest). No filler.

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, the description explains return behavior (claim_token on anonymous filing; later retrieval of status and changes). It also covers prerequisites, exclusion criteria, and rate limiting, making it fully self-contained for a feedback tool.

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 describes all four parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. Description adds value for claim_token (pass it back later with no other args) and context (structured reference to pack/tool/vertical), plus message guidance (1-2 sentences typical). Slightly above baseline but not necessary to compensate for schema gaps.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx and discover_tools by scoping to Pipeworx-owned tools and explicitly excluding 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use mapping: bug for wrong/stale data, feature for missing tools, data_gap for unavailable data, praise for good experiences. Includes a strong exclusion — do not report issues for non-Pipeworx MCP servers — and gives a fallback ('file it with that server instead'). Also explains the claim_token workflow and daily rate limit.

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

All Barcelona Events 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

Many tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer factual queries with subtle differences, and the Polymarket suite (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker) has fine-grained distinctions that are hard to separate. The single Barcelona events tool is isolated and unrelated to the rest, adding to agent confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tool names use snake_case and many follow a verb_noun pattern, but there are notable inconsistencies: noun-first names (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage, pipeworx_trending) and modifiers like beta/grounded on ask_pipeworx introduce non-uniformity. Overall the set is readable but not consistently predictable.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools, the set is beyond the well-scoped 3-15 range. The count is especially inappropriate for a server named 'Barcelona Events' because only one tool actually relates to Barcelona events; the other 31 are a broad data-research and utility collection with no clear connection to the server's apparent purpose.

Completeness1/5

For a server named 'Barcelona Events', the surface is severely incomplete: it offers a single events search tool with no create, update, delete, detail, venue, or organizer operations. Even interpreting the domain broadly, the mismatch between the server name and the tool set leaves a critical gap between user expectation and actual capability.

Resources