Skip to main content
Glama

Bpstat Pt

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 provide minimal information (readOnly=false, etc.). The description enriches this with rate limits (5 per identifier/day), the claim_token follow-up workflow, that it's free and doesn't count against tool-call quota, and that the team reads digests daily. This gives the agent important behavioral context beyond the structured 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?

Although the description is long, every sentence provides actionable information: purpose, use cases, exclusions, content guidance, claim_token workflow, and rate limits. It is front-loaded with purpose and structured logically.

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 no output schema, the description explains return behavior (claim_token) and how to check resolution status. It also covers rate limiting, scope restrictions, and content expectations. For a feedback tool with this complexity, it is highly complete.

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 4 parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra guidance: message should be 1-2 sentences typical, should describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, and the claim_token should be passed in the form pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"}). This additional context justifies 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 states exactly what the tool does: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It enumerates the feedback types (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling data-retrieval tools by being the only feedback mechanism for Pipeworx.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: use for wrong/stale data (bug), missing capabilities (feature/data_gap), or praise. It also gives a clear when-not-to-use rule: only for Pipeworx connection tools, not other vendors' MCP servers, with instruction to file elsewhere. This is exemplary.

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

All Bpstat Pt 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

Multiple tool clusters are nearly indistinguishable: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly documented as currently identical, scan_competitor_ai_presence is a thin wrapper over ai_visibility_check, and the five polymarket_* tools (edges, edge_tracker, arbitrage, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) share heavily overlapping edge-detection/fill-analysis concerns. entity_profile and recent_changes also both fan out to the same SEC/news/patents sources, so an agent must read full descriptions to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

The dominant pattern is imperative verb_first (list_datasets, get_dataset, resolve_entity, validate_claim, scan_dependency, subscribe), but there are notable deviations: noun-phrase names like entity_profile, recent_alerts, recent_changes, bet_research, and deep_research; the ask_pipeworx brand family sits awkwardly beside get_/search_ verbs; and the polymarket_* prefix family forms yet another convention. Names are readable and mostly self-explanatory, but no single consistent scheme is followed.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, this exceeds the 'too many (25+)' threshold, and the bloat is compounded by the server's nominal identity: despite being named 'Bpstat Pt' (Banco de Portugal statistics), only about 5 tools (list_domains, list_datasets, get_dataset, get_series_metadata) actually serve that domain. The other 30 tools span unrelated subsystems — Polymarket betting, npm dependency scanning, AI visibility audits, generic memory, and subscriptions — suggesting several products bundled into one server.

Completeness3/5

For the broader data-gateway interpretation, the lifecycle is well covered: discovery (discover_tools, suggest_questions), query (ask_pipeworx), grounded verification (ask_pipeworx_grounded, validate_claim), deep research (deep_research), profiles/comparisons (entity_profile, compare_entities), monitoring (recent_changes, subscribe/recent_alerts), and memory (remember/recall/forget). However, for the nominal Bpstat statistical domain there is no keyword search over series or datasets — navigation requires knowing domain/dataset ids in advance — and the extreme scatter across unrelated domains leaves each subsystem only partially developed.

Resources