Skip to main content
Glama

Dart Kr

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 false, the description fully carries the burden of disclosing behavior. It reveals rate limiting (5 per identifier per day), that it's free and doesn't count against quota, the anonymous claim_token flow for tracking feedback, and that the team reads digests daily. No contradictions with 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 dense and front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds unique information (scope, exclusions, token flow, rate limit, cost). While a bit long, it remains efficient and well-structured for the complexity it covers.

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, but the description explains the return behavior (claim_token) and how to later check resolution status. It also covers edge cases like uncertainty about server ownership and account-less usage. Given the tool's complexity and optional parameters, the description is complete.

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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds value by explaining the claim_token workflow (passing it later to read status) and providing message content guidelines (be specific, don't paste user's prompt), which are not in the schema.

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.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and explicitly enumerates feedback types (bug, feature, data_gap, praise), which distinguishes 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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use scenarios: when a tool returns wrong/stale data, when a desired tool is missing, or when something worked well. It also gives a clear exclusion: do not report tools from other MCP servers, and tells the user to file with that server instead. This is exemplary guidance.

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

All Dart Kr 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
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx_beta deliberately matches ask_pipeworx exactly right now, discover_tools and suggest_questions both serve as what-can-I-do entry points, and ai_visibility_check is just the single-entity version of scan_competitor_ai_presence. An agent will struggle to pick the right variant without carefully reading long descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools are snake_case and several families share clear prefixes (dart_*, polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*), but the overall set mixes verb_noun (discover_tools, validate_claim), noun_phrase (entity_profile, deep_research), bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), and prefix-noun (dart_financials). Readable but not unified.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is far above the 25+ heavy threshold, and the count is inflated by redundancy: ask_pipeworx_beta is a literal duplicate today, suggest_questions overlaps discover_tools, and ai_visibility_check is subsumed by scan_competitor_ai_presence. The broad Pipeworx platform justifies many tools, but the exposed surface is bloated.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the apparent domain well: universal querying (ask_pipeworx family + deep_research), tool discovery, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, change feeds, claim verification, Korean DART filings, Polymarket analysis/fill-risk, memory, subscriptions, and feedback. Minor gaps remain—there's no explicit fetch-by-citation-URI tool despite claims those URIs are fetchable, and no way to retrieve full DART filing text beyond discovery.

Resources