Skip to main content
Glama

Clinicaltables

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false, providing no behavioral information. The description compensates fully by disclosing the claim_token follow-up mechanism, rate limiting, freedom from quota, and that the team reads digests daily. No contradictions with annotations.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with the purpose, followed by usage, exclusions, operational details, and limitations. Every sentence provides distinct value, and the length is appropriate for the tool's complexity.

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?

The description is comprehensive: it covers usage triggers, exclusions, input guidance, token lifecycle, rate limits, and roadmap impact. With all parameters documented in the schema and no output schema, the description fully equips an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining how to use claim_token for follow-up and advising against pasting end-user prompts, which complements the schema's parameter 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 clearly states the verb 'tell' with the resource 'Pipeworx team' and specifies the scope: 'something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on feedback rather than research or data retrieval.

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?

It explicitly lists when to use the tool (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and when not to (different MCP server, file with that server instead). It also provides a heuristic for uncertainty: 'Not sure? 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 Clinicaltables 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

Several tool groups (ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research, conditions/disease_names, polymarket_* family) have overlapping purposes, requiring careful reading of descriptions to differentiate. While many tools are conceptually distinct, the similarity within domains could lead to agent misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming is mostly snake_case but patterns vary: verb_noun (ask_pipeworx), noun_noun (entity_profile), single verb (forget, recall), and some adjectives (recent_changes). No consistent structure across the set, though individual names are descriptive.

Tool Count2/5

With 40 tools, the server is overly large for typical coherence. The tool count exceeds the 15–25 range deemed borderline, making it hard for agents to navigate and select efficiently.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers medical coding (ICD, LOINC, UCUM, drugs, procedures), financial data, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and meta-tools. Missing but minor elements (e.g., CPT codes) do not significantly hinder common workflows.

Resources