Skip to main content
Glama

Cso Ie

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which are all false and provide little safety profile), the description discloses critical behaviors: rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), the token-based follow-up flow ('Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later... to read whether it was fixed'), and operational transparency ('free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota'). No contradictions with annotations exist.

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?

While the description is a single paragraph, every sentence contributes essential guidance: purpose, use cases, scope restriction, best practices (avoid pasting prompts), token behavior, rate limits, and cost. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately clarifies when to use it. There is no redundancy or filler, making it 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 moderate complexity (nested context object, enum type, optional claim_token) and absence of an output schema, the description provides all necessary context: what to report, how to report it, what happens after filing (claim_token, daily digests), and limitations (rate limit, scope). An agent can confidently select and invoke this tool without additional inference.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

The input schema already covers all four parameters with detailed descriptions (100% coverage). The description goes further by explaining the dynamic between parameters: how filing without an account returns a claim_token that can be used in a later call to check status. This adds semantic meaning beyond the schema, especially for the claim_token parameter, which is otherwise just 'read the reply to a report you filed earlier.'

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', a specific verb+resource that clearly distinguishes it from all sibling research/query tools. It fully explains the tool's role as a feedback channel for the Pipeworx platform, making the purpose unmistakable.

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 usage criteria are provided: '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).' It also gives a clear exclusion—'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection'—and directs other MCP server issues elsewhere. The claim_token read-back workflow is also explained, leaving no ambiguity about when and how to use the tool.

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

All Cso Ie 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 have overlapping purposes: the four ask_pipeworx variants all route to the same 5,581 tools (ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to stable), and the six polymarket_* tools have subtle boundaries between research, edges, and arbitrage that could cause misselection. That said, the descriptions are unusually detailed, and non-overlapping clusters (CSO table tools, memory tools, subscription tools) are clearly distinct.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and mostly verb-first (get_dataset, resolve_entity, validate_claim), but conventions are inconsistent: polymarket_* and pipeworx_* are brand/noun-first while bet_research and ask_pipeworx put the verb first for the same domains, and some tools are pure nouns (entity_profile, recent_alerts). The pattern is readable but far from predictable.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools the server is well past the 25+ 'too many' threshold for a single MCP. Several tools don't earn their place: ask_pipeworx_beta is functionally identical to ask_pipeworx right now, and the six polymarket tools plus four ask_pipeworx variants represent heavy redundancy for what are essentially two sub-domains.

Completeness4/5

The data-access core is covered end to end: discovery (discover_tools, list_datasets, suggest_questions), structured reads (ask_pipeworx, get_dataset, query_dataset), grounded verification (validate_claim, ask_pipeworx_grounded), comparison (compare_entities), change tracking (recent_changes), plus memory and subscription CRUD. Minor gaps: subscriptions can't be edited (only recreated) and unrelated utilities (generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency) dilute the focus rather than fill a real gap.

Resources