Skip to main content
Glama

Cactus

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false, providing no safety/behavior context, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: filing returns a claim_token, passing it back reads status, rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free, and does not count against tool-call quota. It also explains the consequence of filing for non-Pipeworx tools (delays). 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 serves a purpose, with no redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action, then logically flows through when to use, what to avoid, how to file, and follow-up behavior. Well-structured and appropriately sized for the tool's 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?

Given the tool's complexity (four parameters, nested context object, no output schema), the description is fully complete. It covers the return behavior (claim_token), the follow-up mechanism, constraints (rate limit, quota), and inclusion/exclusion criteria. An agent has all necessary context to invoke and interpret results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds substantial value: it explains the claim_token workflow ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})'), provides examples for context fields (pack: 'fred', tool: 'fred_get_series'), and instructs message content ('Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt'). This goes beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 tool's function: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It identifies specific use cases (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing solely on feedback for the Pipeworx connection, not general questioning (ask_pipeworx) or discovery (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?

Explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data... when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog...') and when not to ('ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection — if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead'). It also provides specific instructions for claim_token usage and rate limits.

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

All Cactus 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have clearly differentiated roles, but several pairs blur boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently functionally identical, and identify vs resolve both wrap the same NCI CACTUS service. The detailed descriptions rescue most selections, but an agent could easily mispick between the research and chemical lookup options.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are mostly snake_case and readable, but conventions are mixed: some are verb-first (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim, search_within) while many are noun-first or domain-prefixed (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, recent_changes, pipeworx_trending). There is no single predictable pattern for a new tool's name, though subfamilies (polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*) are internally consistent.

Tool Count3/5

At 33 tools, this is well above the typical well-scoped range and carries real selection overhead. The unusually broad purpose—a data router plus prediction-market analysis, memory, subscriptions, and several standalone utilities—partially justifies the count, but it still feels heavy and could be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

For its varied subdomains, coverage is strong: memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/unsubscribe/list/recent_alerts, and prediction markets span research, edge scanning, arbitrage, fill-risk, and edge telemetry. Minor gaps exist—such as no direct tool to fetch a specific citation URI by identifier, and the redundant stable/beta router pair—but there are no obvious dead ends.

Resources