Skip to main content
Glama

Bis

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are minimal (all false), so the description carries the behavioral burden and does so thoroughly: it discloses rate-limiting (5/day), free usage/no quota, the anonymous claim_token workflow, and that feedback is read daily and affects roadmap. 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?

Though longer than two sentences, every clause serves a purpose: usage boundaries, phrasing guidance, claim-token workflow, rate limits, and cost. The main purpose is front-loaded, and there is no filler or redundancy.

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 a nested context object and no output schema, but the description fully explains how to file, how to follow up anonymously, and what happens to the feedback. It also covers exclusions and practical constraints, making it complete for accurate invocation.

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 the baseline is 3; the description adds genuine value by explaining that claim_token must be passed with no other arguments to read a previous reply, that filing without an account returns a token, and that message should be tool-specific. This goes beyond schema descriptions.

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 first sentence gives a concrete action and resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It further distinguishes this from sibling research/discovery tools by listing specific feedback categories and scoping it to Pipeworx tools.

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 guidance via bug/feature/data_gap/praise categories, and explicit when-not-to-use guidance: do not report issues for tools from other MCP servers. It also tells users how to phrase feedback and how to follow up with a claim_token.

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

All Bis 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have carefully written distinctions, but several overlap in purpose: ask_pipeworx versus ask_pipeworx_beta are currently functionally identical, and ask_pipeworx, deep_research, validate_claim, and the Polymarket research tools all sit on the same factual-question axis. The long descriptions help an agent choose, but the set still has multiple ambiguous boundaries.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are uniformly snake_case and mostly readable, with clear prefix families like pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, and ask_pipeworx*. However, the verb-noun pattern is inconsistent: many tools are noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts, polymarket_edges) and some are bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), so the naming is not predictable across the full set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold and feels like an organic platform dump rather than a curated server. The broad data-platform scope partly justifies the number, but the presence of near-duplicate entry points and one-off utilities (generate_llms_txt, ai_visibility_check, scan_dependency) makes the set feel bloated rather than cohesive.

Completeness4/5

For a read-heavy data/research platform the surface is unusually complete: discovery, single-lookup, grounded-answer, deep-research, entity resolution, comparison, change-tracking, subscriptions, memory, and feedback are all covered. Missing write/execution capabilities like placing trades or modifying BIS flows are reasonable absences for this kind of server; the main gap is a dedicated historical/trend utility beyond the general router.

Resources