Skip to main content
Glama

Bts

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations are all false and offer no safety hints, so the description carries the burden. It discloses key behaviors: anonymous filing returns a claim_token, rate limit of 5/day, free usage, and that the team reads digests daily. It doesn't explicitly state that a persistent feedback record is created, but the token mechanism implies it, so there's no contradiction.

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 sentence earns its place: purpose, use cases, exclusions, claim_token mechanics, rate limit, and cost. It is front-loaded with the core action. While comprehensive, it could be tightened modestly without losing substance.

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 there is no output schema and only four parameters (one enum, one nested object), the description covers all essential behavior: how to file, how to follow up, scope restrictions, rate limits, and cost. It explains the return behavior (claim_token and later status changes) and differentiates from siblings, making the tool self-contained.

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% and parameter descriptions are already detailed, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context: claim_token usage as a standalone follow-up, message content guidance (be specific, don't paste user prompt), and type classification examples. This lifts it slightly 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 clearly states the verb and resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It provides concrete examples (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx and deep_research by focusing on feedback about 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?

The description explicitly details when to use the tool (wrong/stale data, missing tool, praise) and when not to (tools from other MCP servers). It also explains the claim_token follow-up workflow, giving clear context for calling with just the token to retrieve status.

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

All Bts 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with clear descriptions, but the multiple ask_pipeworx variants and several Polymarket tools could cause initial confusion. An agent reading carefully can differentiate them, but the similarity in themes requires attention.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names use a mix of conventions: verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), noun_noun (entity_profile, dataset_columns), and single verbs (remember, forget). While some subgroups have internal consistency (e.g., polymarket_*), there is no overall predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the count exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25. While the server is comprehensive, the large number of highly specific tools (especially for prediction markets) feels overwhelming and could confuse agents.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of capabilities: data querying, entity resolution, company analysis, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and validation. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no data writing tools), but for the read-heavy analytical purpose, it is nearly complete.

Resources