Skip to main content
Glama

Cdc

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 provide only basic hints (readOnly=false, etc.), but the description adds rich behavioral context: the claim_token mechanism for follow-up, the fact that feedback is read daily and affects roadmap, rate limiting ('5 per identifier per day'), and cost ('Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota'). This goes far beyond what annotations convey.

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 dense but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, usage triggers, exclusions, token mechanics, roadmap impact, rate limits, and cost. No filler or redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and flows logically from when-to-use to how-it-works.

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?

With 4 params, 0 required, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers all necessary ground: usage scenarios, exclusions, token return, rate limiting, and how to follow up. It even explains what to avoid ('don't paste the end-user's prompt'). This is complete guidance for a tool of this complexity.

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 descriptions already cover 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by showing concrete usage with claim_token: 'pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})' and clarifies that it should be passed 'with no other arguments.' This enhances understanding beyond the schema alone.

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+resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' This clearly identifies the tool as a feedback channel and distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or discover_tools. The title 'Send Pipeworx Feedback' reinforces the purpose without ambiguity.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: '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).' It also provides a clear exclusion: 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection — if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead.' This is exemplary alternative handling.

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

All Cdc 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

Tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research serve similar querying purposes, and there is overlap among prediction market tools (e.g., polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges). However, descriptions help differentiate them, so agents can usually select the correct one.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case with verbs (ask_, resolve_, validate_), but there are noun-style exceptions (entity_profile, recent_changes, pipeworx_trending) and mixed naming among Polymarket tools. The pattern is readable but not fully consistent.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools, the server feels bloated, especially given the name 'Cdc' implies a focus on CDC data, yet many tools cover unrelated domains like prediction markets and company profiles. Several tools could be consolidated or removed to align with a narrower scope.

Completeness3/5

The CDC domain is thinly covered with only search and get for datasets, lacking upload or advanced filtering. Company financials are limited to basic fundamentals from 10-Ks. Prediction markets are well-covered with arbitrage, edges, and fill risk. The server has notable gaps in its core domain.

Resources