Skip to main content
Glama

catfacts

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?

While annotations are all false, the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: filing returns a claim_token, passing it later returns status and resolution details, the report is rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, feedback is free and doesn't count against quota, and the team reads digests daily. This fully discloses side effects, limits, and lifecycle behavior without contradicting any annotation.

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: purpose, usage triggers, exclusion scope, claim-token workflow, rate limit, and roadmap impact. It is front-loaded with the core action then flows logically into conditions and constraints. No redundant filler; each clause adds behavioral or contextual detail that an agent needs.

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 absence of an output schema, the description fully covers what to expect: a claim_token on filing and later status/changes when reclaimed. It addresses the tool's scope (only Pipeworx tools), the feedback categories, and operational limits. The parameter count (4) and nested context object are adequately explained, making the tool fully usable from the description alone.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds semantic value by explaining the practical use of claim_token ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})') and advising to 'not paste the end-user's prompt,' which clarifies the expected content for the message parameter. It also reiterates the type categories in prose, reinforcing schema enums but not duplicating them excessively.

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 clear, specific action: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It enumerates the exact feedback categories (bug, feature/data_gap, praise), making the tool's purpose unmistakable. It also distinguishes itself from siblings by scoping to 'tools served by this Pipeworx connection,' a differentiation absent in other tool descriptions.

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 (bug), when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog (feature/data_gap), or when something worked surprisingly well (praise)') and when not to ('if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead'). It also gives concrete naming guidance for feedback content, which is actionable and helps the agent decide.

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

All catfacts 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

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical in routing, differing only in response mode; bet_research and polymarket_edges both surface betting opportunities. Even with detailed descriptions, an agent could easily select the wrong one for a given task.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are all snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb_noun (get_fact, list_breeds, validate_claim), some are noun/adjective compounds (entity_profile, deep_research, bet_research), and several use a pipeworx_ prefix. There is no consistent verb style or object-first convention.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is over the 25-tool threshold for a server whose name suggests a narrow cat-facts focus. Only 3 tools relate to cat facts; the rest form a sprawling data platform, creating a severe scope mismatch that makes the count feel excessive and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

For the cat-facts domain, the set covers the essentials: single fact, multiple facts, and breed listing. However, the overall tool surface is a mix of unrelated capabilities (data lookups, memory, subscriptions, prediction markets) that don't form a coherent domain, leaving the cat-facts portion sparse and the broader set without clear lifecycle coverage.

Resources