Skip to main content
Glama

Commons Wikimedia

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations set readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false, but the description adds meaningful context beyond this: rate limits ('5 per identifier per day'), no tool-call quota impact, claim_token behavior, and daily digest review. 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?

While longer than average, every sentence earns its place: purpose, exclusions, content rules, token flow, and operational details. It is front-loaded with the main action and structured logically without redundancy.

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 covers the full feedback lifecycle: when to use, what to include, how to check resolution, scope boundaries, and rate limits. Given the nested context object and two-mode usage, it provides complete guidance even without an output schema.

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 covers all 4 parameters (100%), but the description adds cross-parameter value by illustrating the two workflows: filing with message/context and later reading via claim_token, including a concrete invocation example. It also clarifies that context should reference Pipeworx tools/packs, enriching the semantics.

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 tool's purpose: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It specifies the types of feedback (bug, feature/data_gap, praise), making it distinct from sibling research/data 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 gives explicit when-to-use conditions (tool returns wrong data, tool you wish existed, praise) and when-not-to-use (for tools from other MCP servers), even directing users to file elsewhere. It also provides content guidance: describe in terms of Pipeworx tools, don't paste the end-user prompt.

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

All Commons Wikimedia 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

C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical routers, and the six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research all cover prediction-market analysis with blurry boundaries. The server name 'Commons Wikimedia' also clashes with 30+ Pipeworx tools, making the overall purpose ambiguous. Only the handful of Commons-specific tools (category_members, file_info, file_revisions, random_image, search) are clearly distinct.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and many follow a noun_phrase pattern (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, recent_changes), but verb styles are inconsistent: some are bare verbs (search, recall, subscribe), some are verb_noun (generate_llms_txt, resolve_entity, validate_claim), and several are noun-only (category_members, file_info, pipeworx_feedback). The style is readable but not predictable, mixing action-first and object-first conventions.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is far too many for a server ostensibly named 'Commons Wikimedia' — the vast majority belong to the Pipeworx data platform, not Wikimedia Commons. The count exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many,' and the scope mismatch between the server name and the actual toolset makes the abundance feel even more unjustified.

Completeness2/5

For 'Commons Wikimedia,' the surface is severely incomplete: there is no upload, no category tree navigation, no file download, and no structured search beyond full-text. For the Pipeworx domain, coverage is broad but indirect — most data access funnels through aggregate/meta tools (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, deep_research) rather than direct per-source tools, leaving gaps for granular lookups and leaving the Commons tools stranded with no real integration.

Resources