Skip to main content
Glama

Congress

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. Added

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only say readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, which doesn't describe side effects well. The description adds meaningful context: filing creates a claim_token, requires no account, is rate-limited to 5/day, doesn't count against quota, and the team reads digests daily. Minor gap: no explicit statement that the tool creates a persistent record on the Pipeworx side, though the token mechanism implies it.

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 longer than typical but every sentence adds a distinct piece of operational guidance: what to report, what not to report, how tokens work, and rate limits. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and scoping in the first two sentences. Could be trimmed slightly, but the density justifies the length.

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 this is a low-complexity, no-output-schema tool with excellent parameter schemas, the description covers all needed context: when to use, what to include in the message, the claim_token lifecycle, rate limits, and the relationship to other MCP servers. No significant gaps remain for an agent to misuse this tool.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema covers all 4 parameters at 100% with descriptions, so baseline 3 applies. The description adds value by explaining the claim_token flow (pass it back later to read status) and advises against pasting end-user prompts into the message, but these are behavioral notes rather than parameter syntax details. It doesn't add meaning beyond the schema descriptions for type/context/message.

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) and resource (Pipeworx team), and clearly states the four categories of feedback (bug, missing, needs to exist, praise). It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly scoping to 'tools served by this Pipeworx connection' and naming alternative handling for other MCP servers.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance for each feedback type (bug vs feature vs data_gap vs praise) and a clear exclusion: don't report issues for non-Pipeworx MCP servers, with a helpful ambiguity resolution rule. Also explains the claim_token workflow for follow-up, which is essential context.

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

All Congress 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
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools occupy the same functional space: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_ipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer questions; disover_tools, suggest_questions, and pipeworx_trending all serve discovery; and five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research overlap heavily on prediction-market opportunity detection. The descriptions are detailed, but the boundaries are subtle enough that an agent can easily pick the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set is uniformly lowercase snake_case and uses recognizable prefixes such as ask_pipeworx, polymarket_, pipeworx_, and get_, which makes the naming fairly predictable. It is not a strict verb_noun convention — some names are noun phrases like entity_profile or ai_visility_check — but the overall style is consistent.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the surface is far heavier than the 'Congress' name suggests: only five tools are actually about congressional data, while the rest are general research, memory, subscription, and meta utilities. Many of these overlap, so the count feels bloated rather than well-scoped.

Completeness3/5

For Congress-specific work, the core needs are covered: search bills, get bill details, list members, and retrieve recent votes. However, deeper legislative operations like member voting records, committee actions, and amendments are missing, and the surrounding Pipeworx tools do nothing to close that gap. As a general data-research platform it is broad, but its actual 'Congress' identity feels incompletely realized.

Resources