Skip to main content
Glama

Cpsc

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?

The description discloses stateful behavior (claim_token for later review), rate limiting (5 per identifier per day), cost (free, not counted against quota), and processing cadence (daily digests), all beyond the annotations' false hints. No contradiction with annotations, as readOnlyHint:false is consistent with the write action of 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Though long, the description is front-loaded with the purpose and every sentence provides distinct value—trigger conditions, exclusions, content guidance, claim-token workflow, rate limit, and cost. The structure is logical and readable.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (claim_token, subsequent status) and how to use it. Combined with detailed parameter schema, clear exclusions, and operational notes (rate limit, free), it's complete for correct invocation.

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%, meeting the baseline, and the description adds meaningful guidance: advise describing issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs rather than end-user prompts, and clarifies claim_token's purpose as a follow-up read mechanism. These enrich the parameter understanding beyond schema descriptions.

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 and resource ('Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist') and clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by limiting scope to tools served by this Pipeworx connection. It enumerates use cases (bug, feature/data_gap, praise), making its 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?

It gives explicit triggers (wrong/stale data, missing tool, unexpected success) and an explicit exclusion (other MCP servers' tools), even telling the agent to file with that other server instead. It also clarifies how to identify Pipeworx tools and what content to include, going well beyond basic when-to-use guidance.

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

All Cpsc 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

Most tools are organized into clearly differentiated families (ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded, polymarket_edges vs polymarket_arbitrage), but there are some genuinely ambiguous pairs: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, and search_recalls/recent_recalls, ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence, and bet_research/polymarket_edges all require careful reading to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set is consistently lowercase snake_case and contains strong families like ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, recent_*, and search_*. However, the naming pattern is mixed: imperative verbs (recall, forget, subscribe), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes, pipeworx_trending), and action prefixes (scan_, generate_, validate_) all coexist, making the overall convention less predictable than a uniform verb_noun scheme.

Tool Count2/5

With 33 tools, the server exceeds the healthy range and spreads across many side domains: data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, npm dependency checks, llms.txt generation, and AI visibility audits. No individual tool feels pointless, but the overall surface is sprawling rather than tightly curated for a single purpose.

Completeness4/5

The core research workflow is well covered: querying, grounded verification, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, recent changes, claim validation, deep research, memory, and subscriptions. Minor gaps exist—there is no direct reader for pipeworx:// citation URIs, no tool to update or edit a stored memory, and subscriptions can be created/cancelled but not modified—but agents can work around these.

Resources