Skip to main content
Glama

Coordinates

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 provide little (all false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses the claim_token workflow ('Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later...'), rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), and cost ('Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota'). It also mentions the team's daily digest reading and roadmap impact, giving a clear behavioral model.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence provides a distinct, practical fact: use cases, exclusions, token workflow, rate limits, and quota. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and does not repeat schema content. Length is appropriate for the complexity of the tool.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains what happens (token returned, status read) and gives operational context (daily digests, rate limit, quota). It covers prerequisites (account vs. no account) and content constraints, making it complete for an agent to decide and invoke correctly.

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% with detailed descriptions for each parameter, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds value by reinforcing the claim_token usage pattern and by advising message content ('Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt'), which the schema only partially implies. This extra guidance justifies a 4.

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 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist,' which clearly identifies the action (sending feedback) and the target (Pipeworx team). It enumerates specific feedback types (bug, feature/data_gap, praise), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx which are for inquiries. The verb 'tell' and resource 'Pipeworx team' make the purpose unambiguous.

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 states when to use: 'Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug), when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog...' It also provides a clear when-not-to-use: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead.' This is textbook usage guidance with alternatives and exclusions.

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

All Coordinates 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
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical; bet_research and polymarket_edges both analyze Polymarket markets). Descriptions are detailed but the sheer number of similar tools creates ambiguity for agents.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_subscriptions, create_subscription), but a few use noun_verb (bet_research) or are standalone nouns (centroid, midpoint). Overall, the pattern is fairly consistent despite minor deviations.

Tool Count3/5

35 tools is on the high side for an MCP server. The scope is broad (data access, prediction markets, geospatial, memory, subscriptions), so each tool earns its place, but the number is borderline for coherence.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of functionalities: data querying, entity profiles, comparisons, prediction market analysis, geospatial, memory, subscriptions, etc. Minor gaps exist (no batch operations or data export), but the core workflows are well-supported.

Resources