Skip to main content
Glama

Ca Procurement

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 are all false, so the description carries the burden. It discloses rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), the claim-token workflow ('Filing without an account returns a `claim_token`...'), and that it is free ('doesn't count against your tool-call quota'). It also explains the async feedback process and that the team reads digests daily.

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 longer than average but every sentence adds critical information: use cases, scoping, claim-token mechanics, rate limits, and quota. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and follows a logical structure, so there is no wasted prose.

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 no output schema and all-false annotations, the description covers all essential context: what it does, when to use it, when not to, how the claim-token lookup works, rate limits, and feedback impact. It even instructs on how to phrase feedback ('describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs'). This is a thorough, self-contained specification.

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?

The input schema already covers all parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics for `claim_token` by explaining how to use it to later read status, and for `message` by advising specificity ('1-2 sentences typical, 2000 chars max'). This elevates the parameter guidance.

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,' a specific verb+resource that clearly defines the action. It further enumerates concrete use cases (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and explicitly scopes it to tools served by this Pipeworx connection, distinguishing it from sibling research 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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug)...' and a clear exclusion: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead.' It also offers a decision rule for identifying Pipeworx tools ('Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists'), making usage unambiguous.

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

All Ca Procurement 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The tool set has severe overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve similar query/discovery purposes, and multiple polymarket tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research) overlap heavily in finding betting opportunities. An agent would struggle to select among these without deep familiarity, especially when ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical.

Naming Consistency2/5

Individual families are internally consistent (ca_procurement_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), but the server as a whole mixes domain-prefixed snake_case, bare verb phrases (ask_pipeworx, bet_research), and descriptive noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes). More importantly, the vast majority of tool names have nothing to do with the server's stated 'Ca Procurement' identity, so the naming fails to signal a coherent tool set.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well past the 25+ threshold for 'too many,' and over 85% of them (31 tools) are unrelated to California procurement—they cover general data lookup, prediction markets, npm packages, and memory storage. A scoped CA procurement server would reasonably have 5–8 tools; this is a general-purpose data platform wearing a procurement label.

Completeness3/5

The five relevant ca_procurement_* tools cover the main read-side query patterns well: award search, commodity rankings, department profiles, supplier aggregation, and top suppliers. However, the surface lacks contract/award detail retrieval by ID, solicitation or RFP search, and any vendor registration or contract lifecycle data, leaving notable gaps for a procurement-focused tool set.

Resources