Skip to main content
Glama

Complex Portal

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?

Even though annotations provide some safety signals (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), the description adds substantial behavioral context: filing without an account returns a claim_token that can be used later to check resolution, there's a rate limit of 5 per identifier per day, and it's free and does not count against tool-call quota. None of this contradicts the 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?

Although the description is long, every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage triggers, exclusion rule, identity heuristic, message-format guidance, token behavior, team response cadence, rate limit, and cost. The most critical info (what it does, when to use) is front-loaded; supporting details are organized logically.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains both immediate return behavior (claim_token) and how to later retrieve status/change details. It covers message specificity, context structure, constraints, and the feedback lifecycle. Compared to sibling tools, this is fully specified for a feedback/reporting tool.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by illustrating the claim_token usage pattern with an executable example and clarifying that it should be passed with no other arguments. It also reinforces the type enum and message requirements without duplicating schema text verbatim.

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 clear action: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It names the concrete resource (Pipeworx team/feedback) and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or discover_tools by focusing on reporting issues, gaps, or praise rather than requesting information.

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 guidance: bug reports (wrong/stale data), feature requests, data gaps, and praise. It also states a firm when-not-to-use rule: only for tools served by this Pipeworx connection, not other MCP servers, and even provides a heuristic ('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 Complex Portal 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research heavily overlap with them, and entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, and validate_claim all circle the same company-data space. The prediction-market cluster (polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also requires careful reading to distinguish. The descriptions help, but the set relies on them to disambiguate near-duplicates.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly all tools follow a consistent lowercase snake_case style, whether verb_noun (search_complexes, validate_claim, unsubscribe), noun_verb (entity_profile, recent_changes), or brand-like (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_edges). There is no camelCase mixing or chaotic verb style. Minor inconsistency exists between imperative verbs (remember, forget, subscribe) and noun-style names, but the overall pattern is readable and predictable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well above the 25-tool 'heavy' threshold, and many are meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, remember/recall/forget) that pad the surface. The server is named 'Complex Portal', yet only two tools serve that purpose—the rest belong to a broad data platform. The count feels inflated and misaligned with the server's stated identity.

Completeness3/5

For the broad Pipeworx data platform the surface is fairly complete: universal querying, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, claim validation, subscriptions, memory, and feedback. For the Complex Portal domain named by the server, coverage is thin—just search and fetch-by-accession, with no browsing, species filtering, or cross-reference tools. The core workflow works, but the namesake domain is under-served relative to the rest of the set.

Resources