Skip to main content
Glama

Cdec Ca

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses rate limits (5 per identifier per day), free usage (doesn't count against tool-call quota), and the claim_token round-trip workflow. These are meaningful behavioral details well beyond the annotations (which are all false). It also explains that the team reads digests daily and signal affects roadmap, setting expectations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but each sentence carries useful info, and it is structured logically: purpose → usage scenarios → scope → claim_token flow → expectations → limits. It front-loads with the primary purpose, though some redundancy with schema descriptions (e.g., 2000 chars max) could be trimmed.

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 4 params, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers intake instructions, scope limitations, the claim_token lifecycle, rate limits, and what the team does with feedback. It comprehensively explains how and when to use the tool without needing an output schema.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by instructing users to 'describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt' and explains the claim_token usage pattern explicitly. This enhances parameter understanding even though the schema is detailed.

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 names the resource (Pipeworx team/tools) and the four feedback types. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx by focusing on reporting issues rather than asking questions.

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?

Explicit scenarios are listed: bug, feature/data_gap, praise, and it explicitly warns against reporting issues for non-Pipeworx MCP servers, redirecting to the appropriate place. It also clarifies that Pipeline tool names are those listed by this connection, reducing ambiguity.

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

All Cdec Ca 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

B3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are near-duplicates or have fuzzy boundaries: ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly matches ask_pipeworx exactly, the raw data tools (daily_data, hourly_data, event_data, latest, reservoirs) all read as generic 'get data' operations, and the five polymarket_* scanners overlap in opportunity-finding. The verbose descriptions help for many composite tools, but an agent can still easily select the wrong variant.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming is predominantly consistent lowercase snake_case with strong prefixed families (ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, scan_*) and clear verb_noun actions. Minor deviations like noun-only latest/reservoirs, ask_pipeworx lacking a separator, and generate_llms_txt keep it from a 5.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is well above the heavy threshold, and the count is inflated by redundant meta-tools, three router variants, six overlapping generic data fetchers, and six prediction-market tools. Many tools are purposeful, so it is not an extreme mismatch, but the surface would be much cleaner at roughly 20-25 tools.

Completeness4/5

The set covers the core data lifecycle well: discovery (discover_tools, suggest_questions), lookup (ask_pipeworx), grounding/validation (ask_pipeworx_grounded, validate_claim, search_within), entity workflows (resolve_entity, entity_profile, recent_changes, compare_entities), plus memory and subscription CRUD. Minor gaps like no explicit fetch-by-citation tool and a limited subscription type set prevent a 5.

Resources