Skip to main content
Glama

Data Cambridge

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?

Even though annotations are only negative hints, the description adds meaningful behavioral details: rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free, does not count against quota, returns a claim_token, and reading later reports status/changes. No contradiction 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 longer than typical but each sentence adds necessary context (usage exclusions, token behavior, rate limits, quota impact). It front-loads the core purpose, though the later motivational sentence about roadmap could be trimmed.

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 no output schema, the description still explains the return token and how to read later status/changes. It covers all relevant use cases, exclusions, limits, and parameter semantics, making the tool fully self-contained for an agent.

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 all 4 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining how to use claim_token, advising not to paste user prompts, and suggesting message length. This goes beyond 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?

Description opens with 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist' — a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this as feedback tooling for Pipeworx tools, which none of the sibling tools handle.

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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data...') and when not to ('if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead'). Also clarifies the claim_token workflow for follow-up.

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

All Data Cambridge 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most clusters have clear roles, and the detailed routing guidance separates ask_pipeworx from deep_research and grounded mode. However, three ask_pipeworx variants (one currently identical to stable), plus overlapping opportunity-discovery tools (polymarket_edges vs bet_research) and discovery/onboarding tools (discover_tools vs suggest_questions), leave several boundary cases where an agent could select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Many tools group under readable prefixes (ask_pipeworx, cambridge_, polymarket_, pipeworx_) and are mostly snake_case. But the set mixes bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), verb_noun actions (resolve_entity, validate_claim), and noun-phrase names (entity_profile, recent_changes, polymarket_fill_risk), so no single convention predicts the full API.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well into the 'too many' band, and the count is inflated by a kitchen-sink mix of data querying, prediction-market analysis, memory, subscriptions, feedback, llms.txt generation, and npm scanning. The server name 'Data Cambridge' suggests a narrow local-data scope, which makes the sprawl look even less appropriate.

Completeness3/5

Individual verticals are fairly complete: query/grounded/beta router levels, entity resolution/profile/compare/change, prediction-market discovery through fill-risk, and full memory and subscription CRUD. The major gap is discover_tools, which returns tools promoted as ready to call directly but no generic invocation tool is exposed, so the agent must route back through ask_pipeworx.

Resources