Skip to main content
Glama

Conspiracy Theory

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?

Annotations are all false (no readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, destructive hints), so the description carries full burden. It discloses key behaviors: filing without an account returns a claim_token, rate limit of 5 per identifier per day, free/quota not counted, and that the team reads digests daily. This goes beyond typical annotations and leaves little unknown.

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?

Though longer than average, every sentence contributes value: purpose, use cases, exclusions, account token behavior, team process, rate limit, and cost. The structure is logical and front-loaded, and the length is justified given the nuanced behaviors.

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?

For a feedback tool with no required params, no output schema, and a nested context object, this description fully covers all necessary context. It explains when to use, what to include, how the claim_token flow works, and the team's response cadence. The description is self-sufficient even without annotations.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema. It explains how to use claim_token for later retrieval, clarifies that message should reference Pipeworx tools (not paste user prompts), and elaborates on the type categories (bug, feature, etc.). This extra context makes parameter usage far more reliable.

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 verb and resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It further differentiates from siblings by framing feedback as distinct from ask_pipeworx or discover_tools. The title also reinforces the purpose.

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?

Explicitly lists when to use (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and when not to use (feedback for other MCP servers), and even provides an alternative ('file it with that server instead'). Also gives practical guidance on framing feedback in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs.

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

All Conspiracy Theory 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve route/discover/research data needs, with ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly noted as currently identical to ask_pipeworx. Polymarket tools also blur together (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk), and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence are near-duplicates. An agent would frequently need to read long descriptions just to pick between near-equivalent entry points.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set is mostly snake_case and generally readable, with clear verbs like list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, generate_llms_txt, and validate_claim. However, conventions are mixed: brand-prefixed nouns appear (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending), one tool reverses the pattern (conspiracy_theory_generate vs generate_llms_txt), and the ask_pipeworx family follows its own scheme. The inconsistency is noticeable but does not make the names unreadable.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is heavy, and the apparent scope is a scattered mix of general data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, npm dependency checks, and conspiracy-theory generation. Many tools are meta-routers or aggregators that could be consolidated (e.g., the ask_pipeworx family, the polymarket family, the entity-research tools). The count feels like a growing internal toolkit rather than a deliberately scoped server.

Completeness2/5

The tools cover some complete sub-domains — memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/unsubscribe/list/recent_alerts, and data lookup has multiple verification and research paths. But the server's nominal 'Conspiracy Theory' purpose is essentially one generation tool with no save, share, history, or validation workflow, while the bulk of the surface is unrelated general-purpose data tooling. The overall offering is broad but not coherently complete for any clear stated purpose.

Resources