Skip to main content
Glama

Cms

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses substantive behavioral details beyond the annotations: rate-limiting ('5 per identifier per day'), cost semantics ('Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota'), asynchronous feedback processing ('team reads digests daily'), and the claim_token mechanism for retrieving resolution status. It also explicitly warns not to paste end-user prompts, which is a valuable behavioral guardrail.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose statement, then covers usage, exclusions, token mechanics, and rate limits in an efficient, dense sequence. Every sentence contributes an actionable detail without redundancy; the length is justified by the tool's non-trivial behavior.

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, claim_token follow-up mechanism), the description fully covers what the tool does, how to invoke it, what happens after filing, and the recovery path for checking status. It leaves no critical gaps for an agent to infer incorrectly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although the schema already covers all parameters (100% coverage), the description adds meaningful context not in the schema: that messages should describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, not end-user prompts, and that claim_token is used to read replies to earlier reports. This goes beyond the schema's flat field 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 verb ('Tell the Pipeworx team') and clearly enumerates the supported feedback types: bug, feature/data_gap, praise. It explicitly distinguishes this tool from siblings like ask_pipeworx by scoping it to feedback about Pipeworx tools only, not information 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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance for each feedback type ('Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug)...'), and also a clear when-not-to-use exclusion ('if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead'). It also explains the claim_token workflow, which acts as a usage alternative for those checking on prior feedback.

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

All Cms 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Some tools have clearly distinct purposes (remember/recall/forget, subscribe/unsubscribe), but the ask_pipeworx family overlaps heavily — ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical today, and ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research are variations on the same routing core. Polymarket tools and comparison/profile tools also have fuzzy boundaries, though detailed descriptions help agents choose.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern (search_datasets, get_dataset, validate_claim, resolve_entity). A few deviate with bare verbs (remember, forget, recall) or noun-like names (dataset_info, entity_profile, pipeworx_trending), but the overall style is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is a heavy surface for one server, and the scope sprawls across CMS open data, general data research, prediction markets, memory storage, and subscription management. Many of these could be split into separate coherent servers, and several meta-routers (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions) overlap in purpose.

Completeness4/5

Within the broad data-research domain the set is fairly complete: search, retrieval, grounding, comparison, entity resolution, verification, subscriptions, and memory are all covered with no obvious dead ends. However, the server is named 'Cms' yet only three tools actually touch CMS datasets, leaving that narrow purpose under-covered relative to the rest.

Resources