Skip to main content
Glama

Bioregistry

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?

Discloses several behavioral traits beyond the annotations: returns a claim_token when filing without an account, can be used later with claim_token to read status, rate-limited to 5 per day, free, doesn't count against quota, and team reads digests daily. Annotations only provide hints (all false), so the description carries the full burden and does so admirably.

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 carries unique information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then expands into usage rules, mechanics, and constraints. While long, it avoids fluff; the structure could be tightened with bullets but remains highly scannable.

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 lack of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains what happens after filing (claim_token, later status reads) and covers edge cases (other servers, unsure identification). It also details the freedom from quota and daily digest processing. This is complete for a feedback submission 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics on top: explains the claim_token round-trip usage, advises not to paste end-user prompts, and contextualizes the type field with real-world examples. It doesn't rehash schema definitions but supplements them, justifying a 4.

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.' This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx (which asks questions) and discover_tools (which lists tools). The purpose is unambiguous.

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?

Explicitly states when to use (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and when NOT to use (if the tool came from a different MCP server, file it there instead). Even provides a heuristic for disambiguation: 'Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists.' This is textbook usage guidance with alternatives.

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

All Bioregistry 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Severe overlap exists between ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, all of which route to the same 5,743-tool catalog with only subtle differences. The pair resolve (CURIE-to-URL) and resolve_entity (name-to-ID) share the same verb but mean completely different things in different domains, and the five polymarket tools have heavily overlapping purposes.

Naming Consistency2/5

The set mixes multiple conventions: noun-only names (prefix, prefixes, search, resolve), verb_noun names (generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, validate_claim), adjective_noun names (recent_alerts, recent_changes), and vendor-prefixed names (ask_pipeworx*, pipeworx_*, polymarket_*). Some names break the pattern entirely, like forget and remember, and the plural prefix/prefixes pair is inconsistent.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is heavy for any single server, but the bigger problem is that roughly 31 tools are Pipeworx platform utilities (asking, memory, subscriptions, feedback) while only 4 serve the stated 'Bioregistry' purpose. A server named Bioregistry carrying prediction-market arbitrage and AI-visibility tools is poorly scoped regardless of the absolute count.

Completeness2/5

The Bioregistry surface is thin: search, prefix, prefixes, and resolve cover lookup/pagination but no registry management, and the remaining tools belong to an entirely different, unrelated domain. The server's apparent purpose ('Bioregistry') is barely served, while the Pipeworx functionality, though broad, is buried under an incongruent server name, making the overall surface incomplete and incoherent.

Resources