Skip to main content
Glama

Country State City

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?

With all annotations set to false, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure and delivers richly: it discloses rate limiting (5 per identifier per day), the claim_token workflow for later retrieval, and that the tool is free and excluded from quota. It also clarifies the two-mode behavior (filing vs. checking with claim_token), which is far beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 six sentences and front-loads the core purpose, but includes secondary details like roadmap impact and digest cadence that are informative yet slightly beyond the essential usage guidance. Still, every sentence adds value and none are redundant.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description appropriately explains the claim_token return value and how to follow up on a filed report. Combined with schema-level details, it leaves no operational ambiguity for a feedback tool.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful parameter-level nuance. It explains the claim_token parameter's role in reading prior feedback and instructs users to avoid pasting end-user prompts into the message parameter, which goes beyond schema boilerplate.

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 is a specific verb+resource framing that immediately identifies the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes itself from sibling research/query tools by clearly positioning itself as a feedback channel specific to Pipeworx.

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?

The description explicitly enumerates when to use the tool (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and when not to use it (feedback about non-Pipeworx MCP servers), directing users to file elsewhere. It also provides clear scope guidance: '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 Country State City 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools overlap enough to cause misselection: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are functionally identical right now, ask_pipeworx_grounded and validate_claim both handle factual lookup/verification, and ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence are near duplicates in scope. The country/state/city tools are distinct but sit in a pile of unrelated Pipeworx tools, adding confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lower_snake_case and families like polymarket_* and ask_pipeworx* help group tools, but the verb_noun convention is inconsistent: entity_profile, deep_research, recent_alerts, and pipeworx_trending are noun phrases, while remember/forget/subscribe are bare verbs. It is readable but not a predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is above the practical ceiling for a focused MCP server, and the mismatch is severe: only 3 tools match the 'Country State City' name while 31 belong to a broad Pipeworx platform. A geographic server would need roughly 3-6 focused tools; this surface is bloted.

Completeness2/5

For the stated Country State City domain, list_countries/get_states/get_cities provide the basic hierarchy, but there is no city search, country/state detail lookup, or attribute discovery beyond the three list endpoints, making the useful geographic surface thin. For the Pipeworx domain the coverage is broader, but that confirms the identity mismatch and obscures the server's actual purpose.

Resources