Skip to main content
Glama

Crates

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are sparse (all false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses the claim_token flow for tracking, rate limit of 5 per identifier per day, free/no quota status, and the team's daily digest review. These details give the agent concrete behavioral expectations beyond the annotation.

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 longer than typical descriptions, every sentence adds necessary operational detail—use cases, exclusions, token flow, rate limits, and cost. The opening sentence immediately states purpose and the structure is logical. No filler or redundant content.

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?

The description covers purpose, usage conditions, exclusions, token-based response handling, rate limiting, and cost. Given the tool's complexity and lack of an output schema, this is sufficient for an agent to invoke it correctly and understand 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 already covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra guidance: instructs not to paste end-user prompts, to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, and shows how to use claim_token by passing it back as a lone argument. This exceeds schema coverage but doesn't deeply elaborate each parameter's nuance, so 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 clearly states the tool's function: telling the Pipeworx team about broken, missing, or desired functionality. It explicitly enumerates the feedback types (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and the title reinforces the purpose. This differentiates it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or discover_tools.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and a clear exclusion: only for tools from this Pipeworx connection, not third-party MCP servers. It even suggests an alternative action (file with that server) and offers a way to disambiguate if unsure.

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

All Crates 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The tool set includes several overlapping research/lookup tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile) and multiple Polymarket tools, which could confuse an agent despite detailed descriptions. The boundaries between these tools are explained in the descriptions, but the sheer number of similar-purpose tools creates ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., search_crates, get_versions, validate_claim), but there are exceptions like entity_profile, deep_research, and bet_research, which break the pattern. The overall naming is readable and mostly consistent, with the polymarket_ and pipeworx_ prefixes providing grouping.

Tool Count2/5

With 35 tools, the server is far too heavy for a focused service. The server name 'Crates' suggests a narrow domain, but only 5 tools relate to Rust crates, while the rest cover disparate areas (Pipeworx, Polymarket, memory management). This mismatch and high count make the tool surface unwieldy.

Completeness4/5

For the underlying Pipeworx/Polymarket domain that the majority of tools serve, the coverage is strong: lookup, grounded answers, research, entity profiles, comparisons, changes, claim validation, scanning, memory, subscriptions, tool discovery. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct summarization), but the set feels well-rounded for a data analysis agent.

Resources