Skip to main content
Glama

Data Bloomington

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 adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the all-false annotations: it discloses rate-limiting (5 per identifier per day), the claim_token return flow, that the tool is free and doesn't count against quota, and that reports are read daily and affect roadmap. This is rich, honest context that goes far beyond what annotations alone convey.

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 but information-dense; every sentence contributes unique guidance. It front-loads the core purpose, then layers usage criteria, exclusions, and behavioral details. It is slightly verbose but appropriately so given the tool's nuanced usage rules.

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 4 params, no output schema, and no useful annotations, the description carries the full burden and succeeds. It explains the return behavior (claim_token issuance and later resolution checking), rate limits, target audience, and how to frame feedback. No significant gaps remain for an agent to misuse the tool.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100%, the description adds crucial semantics: it clarifies that claim_token must be passed alone, gives an explicit syntax example, advises 1-2 sentence messages, and emphasizes not pasting end-user prompts. These usage rules meaningfully supplement the schema's field 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.' It clearly enumerates the feedback types (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and distinguishes this tool from siblings by positioning it as the channel for reporting issues about Pipeworx tools, not for general questions or actions.

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 'Use when' conditions for each feedback type and includes an important exclusion: only for tools served by this Pipeworx connection, otherwise file with the other server. It also clarifies ambiguity by pointing to the tool list and instructs users not to paste end-user prompts, making when-to-use and when-not-to-use very clear.

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

All Data Bloomington 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tool clusters overlap heavily — ask_pipeworx_beta is functionally identical to ask_pipeworx right now, and the six Polymarket tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research, etc.) have blurry boundaries. The entity-research family (entity_profar, compare_entities, recent_changes) is also easy to misselect despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case, but conventions are mixed: verb_noun (resolve_entaty, validate_claim), bare verbs (remember, recall, query), adjective_noun (recent_alerts, recent_changes), and brand-prefixed nouns (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending). Family prefixes and verbs help readability, but the overall pattern is not uniform.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools this exceeds the 25+ threshold and spans loosely related domains — Bloomington open data, Pipeworx research, prediction markets, AI marketing, memory, npm scanning, and llms.txt generation. The scope feels heavy and unfocused relative to the 'Data Bloomington' server name.

Completeness4/5

The core research lifecycle is well covered: routing (ask_pipeworx), grounded verification, deep research, entity profiles/comparisons/changes, claim validation, entity resolution, subscriptions, and memory all exist. Minor gaps remain — no standalone tool for fetching a pipeworx:// citation URI and no API-key management — but agents can work around them.

Resources