Skip to main content
Glama

Could Have Been Email

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses significant behavioral traits beyond the annotations: the claim_token flow for retrieving status, the daily rate limit of 5 per identifier, that it's free and doesn't count against quota, and that the team reads digests daily. These details add transparency about side effects and constraints. No contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false is consistent with filing feedback).

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 substantial but every sentence serves a purpose: scope, when-to-use, exclusions, mechanics, token flow, rate limit, and policy. It is front-loaded with the main action and then progressively details specifics. Slightly longer than strictly necessary, but the density of useful information justifies its 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 the tool's complexity (4 params, nested context object, token flow) and no output schema, the description fully covers usage conditions, parameter semantics, response behavior (claim_token), and practical constraints like rate limits and quota exemption. An agent has all the information needed to invoke this tool correctly and know what to expect.

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 each parameter is already well-described. The description adds extra value by explaining the claim_token usage pattern ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})' and 'with no other arguments'), which is not fully captured in the schema. Minor redundancy with the schema descriptions keeps this from a 5.

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 the Pipeworx team') and resource, clearly defining the tool's purpose: sending feedback about bugs, missing features, or praise for Pipeworx tools. It distinguishes itself from all sibling tools by scoping to Pipeworx connection tools only and explicitly naming alternative servers it cannot fix.

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 it (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and when not to ('if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead'). It also gives concrete guidance on what to include in the message and how to check on previous reports via the claim_token, fully covering usage context and exclusions.

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

All Could Have Been Email 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

Several tool clusters are nearly indistinguishable in purpose: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same underlying catalog, and the six polymarket tools heavily overlap in surfacing prediction-market edge. Even with detailed descriptions, an agent could easily misselect between bet_research and polymarket_edges or between discover_tools and suggest_questions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names use lowercase snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: some are verb_noun (compare_entities, resolve_entity), some are bare verbs (remember, forget, recall), and some are compound noun phrases (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending). ask_pipeworx also breaks the separator convention compared to ask_pipeworx_beta and ask_pipeworx_grounded.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many' and feels like a platform bundle rather than a focused server. It spans data querying, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, feedback, AI visibility, dependency scanning, and llms.txt generation, which is far more surface area than one coherent server should present.

Completeness4/5

For the core data-research and prediction-market domains, coverage is strong: query, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, comparisons, change feeds, arbitrage, fill-risk, subscriptions, and memory are all present with no major dead ends. The gaps are mostly the single-purpose oddballs (could_have_been_email_analyze, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency) that don't connect to the rest of the surface.

Resources