Skip to main content
Glama

Celestrak

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?

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the claim_token flow for anonymous use, rate limiting (5 per identifier per day), that it is free and does not count against tool-call quota, and that feedback is read daily and affects the roadmap. This goes well beyond structured annotations.

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 front-loaded with purpose and every sentence serves a function (usage, exclusions, tips, token flow, limits). It could be tightened slightly, but the structure is logical and no sentence is wasted.

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 no output schema and four optional parameters, the description fully covers what a caller needs: when to use, how to format feedback, what happens with an anonymous filing, how to check resolution, and constraints. There is no ambiguity about the tool's behavior or expected outcomes.

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 by explaining how type values map to use cases, how claim_token works as a follow-up mechanism, and that context is optional structured info. This goes beyond the schema's field-level 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 opens with a specific action: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly identifies the tool as a feedback channel for Pipeworx tools, which distinguishes it from all sibling 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 explicitly states when to use this tool (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and provides an exclusion: do not use for other MCP servers' tools, file with that server instead. It also gives a clarifying test for unsure cases (Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists).

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

All Celestrak 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set mixes several distinct domains (satellite orbital data, Pipeworx data routing, prediction-market analysis, memory management, subscriptions), but within the Pipeworx umbrella there is heavy overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route natural-language questions to the same underlying 5,756 tools. An agent could easily misselect between them, especially since ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are described as currently identical.

Naming Consistency3/5

Many tools follow a clear verb_noun pattern (list_subscriptions, create... none, but compare_entities, resolve_entity, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, subscribe/unsubscribe, remember/recall/forget), yet the naming is inconsistent across the set: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, get_satellite, get_group, recent_alerts, recent_changes, entity_profile, and deep_research do not share a uniform convention. CamelCase appears in polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc. while most others are snake_case, and the satellite tools (get_satellite, get_group, search_by_name) form a distinct sub-pattern that clashes with the Pipeworx meta-tools.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is on the heavy side, and the effective surface is bloated: there are three variants of ask_pipeworx, four polymarket_* tools, three satellite-specific tools that are unrelated to the server's apparent core purpose, and several meta/utility tools (remember, recall, forget, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, suggest_questions) that could be consolidated or are only tangentially related. The count itself is not extreme, but the scope is muddled: the server claims the name Celestrak (satellite tracking) while the overwhelming majority of tools are for Pipeworx data access and prediction markets, making the tool count feel inappropriate for either purpose.

Completeness3/5

For the Pipeworx data-access domain, the tool set is quite thorough: natural-language routing, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiling, entity comparison, claim verification, semantic search, and tool discovery are all present. However, there are notable gaps: the subscription lifecycle lacks an update/resume mechanism, and the satellite domain (the server's namesake) is severely incomplete — only three lookup tools with no live tracking, no group listing beyond a handful of groups, and no clear lifecycle CRUD. The memory tools (remember/recall/forget) are minimal but complete for their narrow scope.

Resources