Skip to main content
Glama

Boi Il

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?

Annotations are all false and uninformative, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses rate limits (5 per identifier per day), free usage, no quota impact, and that the team reads digests daily. It also explains the claim_token return behavior without contradicting any annotation flags.

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?

Long but dense; every sentence adds value, and the purpose is front-loaded. It could be tightened or broken into bullets, but the structure logically flows from purpose to exclusions to follow-up and limits. Not wasteful.

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?

For a feedback tool with 4 params (including nested object) and no output schema, the description covers all needed context: what to include, what not to include, account status, rate limits, and the claim_token follow-up mechanism. Nothing important is missing.

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 covers all parameters (100%), so baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics: how to use claim_token with no other arguments, and the nuance of describing issues in terms of Pipeworx tools rather than pasting user prompts. This lifts it above baseline.

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 this feedback tool from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx by scoping to Pipeworx tools and packs, and explicitly excludes 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 conditions (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and a clear when-not-to-use with an actionable alternative ('file it with that server instead'). It also explains the claim_token flow for follow-ups, making usage contexts unmistakable.

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

All Boi Il 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have highly detailed descriptions that clarify their distinct roles, and the pipeworx/boi/polymarket families are individually distinguishable. However, ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly described as currently identical to ask_pipeworx (a true duplicate), and the polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) share overlapping purpose and could cause misselection despite their lengthy docs.

Naming Consistency3/5

Many tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (compare_entities, discover_tools, resolve_entity, validate_claim), but a large subset uses noun-first or prefixed compound names (ai_visibility_check, bet_research, boi_exchange_rate, polymarket_arbitrage). The naming is readable and group-consistent (boi_*, polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx*) but the overall convention is mixed rather than uniform.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the set exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many' and spans many unrelated domains (data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, llms.txt generation, feedback). The broad scope explains the count, but many tools feel like add-on utilities rather than a tightly scoped server, making the surface feel bloated.

Completeness4/5

The core domain—authoritative structured data access—is extremely well covered: universal routing, grounded mode, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, claim validation, resolution, discovery, and suggestions. Minor gaps exist (no explicit tool for fetching a pipeworx:// citation URI directly, no update operation for subscriptions), but agents can work around these via the router and existing subscription lifecycle tools.

Resources