Skip to main content
Glama

Buzzword Density

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. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint:false and destructiveHint:false, but the description adds crucial behavioral details: returns a claim_token when filed without an account, supports later retrieval with status/changes, rate limit of 5/day, free, and no quota impact. It also instructs to describe issues without pasting end-user prompts. 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?

The description is long but every sentence earns its place: the first line is a clear purpose, followed by usage triggers, exclusions, token behavior, rate limit, and quota note. No redundancy or filler. Front-loaded and well-organized for the complexity.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains return behavior (claim_token on filing; status/changes on later call). It covers prerequisites (no account needed, but token), limits, and context about what to include. Given a 4-param tool with nested object and no output schema, this description is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value by mapping enum values to real scenarios (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and by giving extra guidance on the message param ('don't paste the end-user's prompt') and how to use claim_token effectively. This elevates 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 tool from siblings by specifying it is for reporting issues about Pipeworx tools only, not 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?

Extensive when-to-use guidance is given for each feedback type (bug, feature/data_gap, praise). It explicitly says when NOT to use ('if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead'), plus provides the alternative. This fully covers usage vs alternatives.

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

All Buzzword Density 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple ask_pipeworx variants and several prediction market tools. This causes ambiguity for agents trying to select the right tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix verb_noun patterns (ask_pipeworx, forget) with noun phrases (entity_profile) and inconsistent prefixes (pipeworx_, polymarket_). No consistent naming convention.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools, the set is excessive for a server named 'Buzzword Density' and includes many redundant or overlapping tools. A more focused set of 10-15 would be more coherent.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of data sources and operations (retrieval, comparison, monitoring, memory), missing only minor lifecycle operations like updating stored data.

Resources