Skip to main content
Glama

Data Dallas

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false, providing no safety clues, but the description discloses key behavioral traits: returning a `claim_token` for later lookup, being 'Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day,' and being 'Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota.' It also sets expectations about human review and roadmap impact. This far exceeds what annotations provide.

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 a single dense paragraph, but every sentence contributes uniquely—purpose, usage cases, server scoping, message style, token flow, and constraints. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and expands logically. While longer than ideal, it avoids filler and justifies its length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no output schema, the description covers the main contexts: when to submit vs. check status, what to include, exclusions, and rate limits. The schema fully describes all parameters, including the nested `context` and `claim_token` behavior. Minor gaps remain (e.g., what happens with an account vs. without), but overall 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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the `claim_token` round-trip workflow—'Filing without an account returns a `claim_token`; pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})'—and by advising on message content ('don't paste the end-user's prompt'). This enhances parameter understanding beyond 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 opens with 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist,' which clearly states the action (send feedback) and target (Pipeworx team). It further distinguishes from siblings by explicitly scoping to 'tools served by this Pipeworx connection' and listing use cases (bug, feature/data_gap, praise). This is a specific verb+resource with strong sibling differentiation.

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: '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 provides a clear exclusion for other MCP servers and a heuristic to identify Pipeworx tools. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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

All Data Dallas 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with a few overlapping pairs (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded, multiple polymarket tools) that could cause mild confusion, but descriptions adequately differentiate them.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case, but the verb_noun pattern is not consistently applied; some names are noun_noun (dallas_datasets, bet_research) or adjective_noun (ai_visibility_check), creating a mixed nomenclature.

Tool Count2/5

With 33 tools, the server exceeds the typical well-scoped range. While the broad data domain justifies many tools, the count feels heavy and would benefit from consolidation of related functions.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide array of domains (company data, drugs, economics, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions) with only minor gaps (e.g., no direct web search tool, as ask_pipeworx mostly covers it). Overall, it is comprehensive for its purpose.

Resources