Skip to main content
Glama

Dailymed

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?

Annotations are all false/neutral, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: filing without an account returns a `claim_token` that can be used later to check status; rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day; free and doesn't count against tool-call quota; feedback is read daily and affects roadmap. This is rich behavioral context with no contradiction to annotations.

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 long (~170 words) but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage, exclusions, mechanics, rate limit, and quota note. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and usage, then details. It could be slightly shorter, but for a tool with nuanced usage rules and a token mechanism, the length is justified.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return mechanism (`claim_token`) and how to follow up. It covers all key operational aspects: what feedback to file, where not to file, how to phrase it, the token flow, rate limits, and roadmap impact. Combined with 100% schema parameter coverage, this is complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

The input schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the `claim_token` flow in detail (pass it back with no other arguments to read the reply), and by guiding `message` content ('Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt'). This exceeds baseline but doesn't fully reinvent the schema's parameter definitions.

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 purpose: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' This goes beyond the title by specifying the action (reporting feedback) and the resource (Pipeworx team/tools). It also distinguishes from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx by focusing on reporting issues about Pipeworx tools rather than querying for answers.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance with concrete categories ('bug', 'feature/data_gap', 'praise') and clear when-not-to-use guidance: 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection — if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead.' It also instructs how to describe the issue ('in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt').

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

All Dailymed 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded; deep_research; bet_research and multiple polymarket tools). This makes it difficult for an agent to distinguish which tool to use.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case and follow a verb_noun or noun_verb pattern. However, some names are very long and descriptive (e.g., polymarket_kalshi_spread, scan_competitor_ai_presence), which is acceptable but slightly inconsistent in length.

Tool Count3/5

With 38 tools, the server is on the high side of reasonable. Many are meta-tools or query routers, which inflates the count. The scope is very broad, covering diverse domains, making the number somewhat justifiable but still feeling heavy.

Completeness3/5

For the Dailymed domain, tools cover label search, retrieval, history, and comparison. However, many other domains (e.g., finance, prediction markets) rely on a handful of routing tools (ask_pipeworx) rather than dedicated tools, leaving the coverage uneven and not fully self-contained.

Resources