Skip to main content
Glama

Coresignal

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite all annotations being false, the description discloses abundant behavioral traits: rate-limiting (5 per identifier per day), no quota impact, the claim_token round-trip mechanism, daily digest processing, and a content rule (don't paste end-user prompt). No contradiction 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?

The description is dense yet tightly structured: purpose first, then use cases, then scope exclusion, then workflow, then operational limits. Every sentence earns its place with no fluff, and it is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 the tool's complexity (feedback workflow, scope restrictions, rate limits) and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: eligible scope, what to include/exclude, claim_token follow-up, rate limits, and expectations. It is fully actionable for an agent.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds minimal parameter semantics beyond the schema: it explains the claim_token usage pattern ('pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})') and message length guidance, but this is largely redundant with schema descriptions. No significant added value.

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+resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from siblings by explicitly stating it is ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection, not 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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided for each feedback type (bug, feature/data_gap, praise). It also gives a clear exclusion: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead,' plus a disambiguation rule ('Not sure? 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 Coresignal 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
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools form tight families with overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all handle research queries, and entity_profile/compare_entities/recent_changes aggregate overlapping data. The descriptions are thorough and do distinguish them, but an agent could easily select the wrong member of a family for a given query.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case, but conventions vary: verb_noun (list_subscriptions, resolve_entity), domain-prefixed nouns (polymarket_arbitrage, coresignal_company), bare verbs (remember, forget, recall), and an ask_* family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded). Patterns are predictable within clusters but there is no uniform server-wide convention.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well beyond the comfortable range, and the server named 'Coresignal' carries only two Coresignal-branded tools while also hosting prediction-market analysis, memory utilities, npm dependency scanning, llms.txt generation, and feedback mechanisms. The breadth feels bloated even though the core research platform is substantial.

Completeness4/5

The research/QA domain is well covered: simple lookup, grounded verification, deep multi-source research, entity resolution and profiling, comparisons, claim validation, subscriptions, and memory. Meta-tools like discover_tools and suggest_questions help navigation. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no standalone bulk-download or export tool), but there are no obvious dead ends.

Resources