Skip to main content
Glama

Data Kcmo

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?

Annotations provide no behavioral hints (all false), so the description carries full weight. It discloses non-obvious behavior: claim_token flow for follow-up reads, rate limit of 5 per identifier per day, and no impact on tool-call quota. This goes well beyond the structured data.

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 carries meaningful content. It is front-loaded with purpose and then systematically covers usage, exclusions, mechanics, and limitations. Slightly long, but appropriately so given the tool's complexity; a 5 would require even tighter organization.

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?

The tool is relatively complex with four parameters, nested objects, and a follow-up claim_token workflow. The description covers the workflow, rate limits, exclusions, and what to report, making it self-contained. No output schema exists, but the return behavior is explained well enough for correct invocation.

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% with helpful descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics by explaining the claim_token usage pattern ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:...})') and adding guidance for message content (avoid pasting end-user prompts). This justifies a 4, though not a 5 since context object details are already 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: to tell the Pipeworx team about broken, missing, or desired functionality. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly framing this as feedback about the Pipeworx connection's tools, contrasting with 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use criteria (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and an explicit when-not-to-use exclusion (tools from other MCP servers). It also offers guidance for uncertainty, noting that Pipeworx tool names are those listed by this connection.

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

All Data Kcmo 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

The ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research cluster is highly overlapping—beta is explicitly identical right now and grounded differs mainly in answer extraction. Several other pairs (ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence, and the six prediction-market tools) also blur boundaries, making misselection likely.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are uniformly snake_case and benefit from clear prefixes (ask_pipeworx_, kcmo_, polymarket_, pipeworx_). However, conventions are mixed between bare verbs (forget, recall, remember), noun phrases (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, recent_alerts), and verb_noun forms, and similar names like polymarket_edges vs polymarket_edge_tracker add confusion.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well into the bloat range, and only 3 are actually Kansas City-specific despite the server name. The surface bundles prediction markets, memory, feedback, llms.txt generation, and npm scanning alongside data lookup, making it heavy and unfocused; several meta-tools could be collapsed.

Completeness4/5

As a read-only data research platform, the surface is quite complete: discovery, querying, grounded answers, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, claim verification, subscriptions, and memory are all covered with few dead ends. Minor gaps exist—no subscription update, no direct citation-URI fetch tool, and a thin KC-specific set—but agents can work around them.

Resources