Skip to main content
Glama

Data Delaware

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only state readOnlyHint=false, etc., but the description goes far beyond: it discloses the claim_token flow for anonymous filing, rate limiting ('5 per identifier per day'), that it's free and doesn't count against quota, and that the team reads daily digests. This is rich behavioral context that annotations alone could not provide. No contradictions.

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 average but every sentence delivers essential information: purpose, use cases, exclusions, claim_token mechanics, rate limits, and budget impact. It front-loads the primary purpose and then layers behavioral details. No filler, but a slightly tighter format would earn a 5.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, a nested object, no required fields, and no output schema, the description fully covers how to report different feedback types, what to include in message/context, how anonymous tracking works, and system constraints. It is complete for both first-time and return usage.

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?

Schema coverage is 100% with detailed parameter descriptions, but the description adds valuable semantics: it explains how to use claim_token ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})'), and gives message guidance ('Be specific... 1-2 sentences typical, 2000 chars max'). This goes beyond the schema's field-level text.

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 clear, specific verb+resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It explicitly names the four feedback types (bug, feature, data_gap, praise), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or discover_tools. The purpose is unambiguous and immediately actionable.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance with concrete examples ('tool returns wrong/stale data', 'tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog'), and equally explicit when-not-to-use: 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection... if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead.' This clearly differentiates from siblings and prevents misreporting.

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

All Data Delaware 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route queries to the same data sources with only subtle differences. Similarly, bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and polymarket_edge_tracker all analyze prediction markets, making it hard for an agent to pick the right one without deep reading of descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names follow a mix of patterns: some are verb_noun (generate_llms_txt, list_subscriptions), some noun_verb (ai_visibility_check, bet_research), and some are just nouns (datasets, metadata). The ask_pipeworx family has consistent prefixes but suffixes vary. Overall readable but inconsistent.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for a coherent server. The server tries to be a Swiss Army knife covering data lookup, prediction markets, Delaware open data, memory, subscriptions, and misc tools like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency. Many tools feel tacked on, and the count makes it unwieldy for an agent to navigate.

Completeness3/5

The server covers multiple domains thoroughly (data query via Pipeworx variants, prediction markets with arbitrage and edges, Delaware open data, memory, subscriptions). However, there are gaps: no tool for managing custom pipelines or for updating data. For the broad scope, it is decent but not fully comprehensive.

Resources