Skip to main content
Glama

climate

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false, so they convey no meaningful behavioral constraints. The description compensates richly by disclosing multiple behaviors: filing without an account returns a claim_token, passing that token back lets you read the status and resolution, the team reads digests daily, it is rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, and it is free and doesn't count against the tool-call quota. These details add significant behavioral context that annotations do not provide.

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 longer than typical, but every sentence carries useful information. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then flows logically through usage conditions, excluded scenarios, content guidance, token mechanics, and operational details. While a few phrases like 'The team reads digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap' are not strictly necessary for invoking the tool, they are informative and not redundant. The structure is well-organized despite the length.

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 (4 parameters, nested context object, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains how to submit feedback, what to include and exclude, how to use the claim_token for a follow-up read, and the rate-limiting behavior. Since there is no output schema, the description appropriately mentions the return of a claim_token when filing and status when checking, covering the two invocation modes adequately.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra parameter semantics by explaining the two-mode usage of claim_token: 'pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"}) to read whether it was fixed and what changed.' It also clarifies that when passing claim_token, no other arguments should be used. This goes beyond the schema's parameter description and justifies a score above baseline.

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 and resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly frames the tool as a feedback channel for bugs, feature requests, data gaps, and praise. This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta, which are for queries rather than reporting issues, and it even scopes to only this connection's 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 lists 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).' It also states when NOT to use it (for tools from other MCP servers) and directs the user to file with that server instead. The instruction to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools and not paste the end-user's prompt is a clear usage guideline.

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

All climate 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
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple query-router tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and bet_research all serve as entry points into the same underlying data, with ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly described as currently identical to ask_pipeworx. Prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk) also have fuzzy boundaries that an agent could easily mis-select.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a readable lower_snake_case verb_noun pattern (compare_entities, get_climate_projection, resolve_entity), but conventions are mixed: pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, recent_alerts, and recent_changes are noun-first/non-imperative, and the ask_pipeworx family uses a verb-plus-variant-suffix style. The pattern is predictable enough to navigate but not consistent.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is heavy for a single MCP server, and the server name 'climate' does not match the broad data-research, prediction-market, memory, subscription, and web-utility scope actually covered. Several tools could be consolidated (ask_pipeworx variants, discover_tools/suggest_questions, multiple polymarket scanners), which would reduce cognitive load without losing capability.

Completeness4/5

As a general data-access and research surface, the tool set is quite complete: it covers lookup, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, comparisons, recent changes, memory, subscriptions, alerts, feedback, and tool discovery. Minor gaps exist — the climate-specific coverage is limited to projections and model comparison despite the server name, and there is no direct tool to page through the full catalog — but for its inferred broad purpose there are no major dead ends.

Resources