Skip to main content
Glama

Codestats

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only set negative hints (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), while the description adds substantive behavior: filing without an account returns a claim_token, the token can be reused later to check resolution, feedback is rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, and it is free/counts no quota. This goes well beyond the annotations and does not contradict them.

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 dense and long, but every clause carries useful guidance: use cases, exclusions, token flow, rate limits, and relevance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. Slightly unfocused as a single wall of text, but 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?

Given no output schema, the description fully explains expected return behavior (a claim_token on first filing, status/resolution when reused). It also covers prerequisites (account optional), daily limits, and how the feedback is processed (daily digest, roadmap impact), making the tool's behavior comprehensive for an agent.

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 extra meaning beyond schema: it clarifies the claim_token usage pattern ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})... with no other arguments'), advises against pasting end-user prompts, and emphasizes being specific in the message. This enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 enumerates the feedback types (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and overall scope (Pipeworx tools), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or discover_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?

Explicit usage criteria are given: '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 provides a clear exclusion and alternative: 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection... if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead.'

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

All Codestats 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct, well-described purposes, but clusters like ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded and the five polymarket_* tools have overlapping scopes that could cause misselection. The beta currently behaves identically to the stable router, and `recent` vs `recent_changes` vs `recent_alerts` are confusingly similar names for different domains.

Naming Consistency2/5

All names use lowercase underscores, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern: some are verbs (ask, compare, generate), some are nouns (entity_profile, recent, user), and some are adjectives (deep_research). There are coherent subfamilies (subscribe/unsubscribe/list_subscriptions, remember/recall/forget), but the overall naming is a mix of conventions.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well above the 25+ threshold, making the surface heavy and hard to navigate. Many are highly specialized meta-tools (e.g., five Polymarket analyzers) that could be consolidated.

Completeness2/5

For a server named 'Codestats', only `recent` and `user` address coding stats, leaving major gaps in what that name implies. The broader data/research/betting capabilities are fairly rich, but the server's stated identity is under-served and there's no clear lifecycle coverage for any single domain.

Resources