Skip to main content
Glama

Bookbrainz

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

All annotations are false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses rate limiting (5 per identifier per day), that it is free and does not count against quota, and the claim_token workflow for tracking feedback. This goes beyond annotations, though it could mention any write side effects more explicitly; still, it provides strong operational context.

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 longer than average but every clause contributes actionable guidance: usage triggers, exclusion criteria, token mechanics, and limits. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then logically flows into usage details, making it efficient despite its length.

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 tool with zero required parameters, a nested context object, and no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: when to file, what to include, how to follow up with a token, and behavioral constraints. It even explains the return behavior of claim_token in the absence of an output schema, making it fully contextual.

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 100% of parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema: it instructs users to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, warns against pasting end-user prompts, and explains how claim_token is used as a standalone argument to check status—details that enrich parameter understanding.

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 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist,' clearly establishing a specific action (sending feedback) and target resource (the Pipeworx team). It enumerates concrete feedback categories (bug, feature/data_gap, praise), which differentiates it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or discover_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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: for bugs, feature requests, data gaps, or praise. It also clarifies when NOT to use it—if the tool came from a different MCP server, the user should file with that server instead—and provides a method to disambiguate ('Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists').

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

All Bookbrainz 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set mixes three distinct domains: BookBrainz entity access (browse, lookup, search), Pipeworx data routing (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions), and Polymarket betting analysis. Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, particularly the ask_pipeworx variants and the various polymarket_* tools, which an agent could easily confuse.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names follow a readable snake_case convention. While some are single verbs (browse, lookup, search), others use compound patterns (ask_pipeworx_grounded, polymarket_edge_tracker, pipeworx_trending), and there are a few noun-first names (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback, recent_changes). The inconsistency is minor and does not hinder readability.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, this is a large surface for a server named Bookbrainz, yet only 3 tools (browse, lookup, search) actually serve that domain. The remaining 31 tools are unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket functionality, making the tool count inappropriate for the stated server purpose and suggesting a mislabeled or overloaded server.

Completeness2/5

The BookBrainz domain is severely incomplete: it offers read-only access (search, browse, lookup) but no create, update, or delete operations for entities. For the broader Pipeworx/Polymarket functionality, coverage is quite deep, but that is not the server's stated domain. This leaves a fundamental gap for the BookBrainz use case.

Resources