Skip to main content
Glama

Data Mo

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 are all false, giving no safety hints. The description compensates richly by disclosing the two-phase claim-token flow ('Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later... to read whether it was fixed'), rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), quota impact ('doesn't count against your tool-call quota'), and human review cadence ('digests daily'). These are behavioral traits beyond 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage, exclusions, token mechanics, rate limits, and quota. It is front-loaded with the core action and immediately follows with when-to-use. No fluff or repetition of schema fields.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (optional parameters, two-phase flow, no output schema), the description covers all critical aspects: what to report, when to use, exclusions, follow-up mechanism, and operational constraints. It leaves no obvious gaps 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.

Parameters4/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is high. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how to obtain a claim_token ('Filing without an account returns a claim_token') and by giving content guidance for message ('don't paste the end-user's prompt'). However, it doesn't elaborate on when to use the context object vs the message field, and the context parameter descriptions are minimal. Still, the description meaningfully enhances schema semantics.

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 directive: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It explicitly lists the feedback types (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by restricting scope to Pipeworx-served tools only. This is a specific verb + resource + purpose, fully differentiating it from siblings like ask_pipeworx.

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 provides 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 gives a clear exclusion: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead,' plus help for disambiguation ('Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists'). This is textbook 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 Mo 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tool pairs have blurred boundaries: 'ask_pipeworx', 'ask_pipeworx_beta', and 'ask_pipeworx_grounded' serve overlapping routing purposes with minor differences in grounding or versioning, which can confuse an agent. Similarly, 'pipeworx_feedback' and the user feedback mechanism inside other tools lack clear tool-level distinction. Most other tools are distinct but the cluster of ask_pipeworx variants lowers overall clarity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names largely follow a consistent verb_noun or prefix_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, scan_dependency). Some names like 'bet_research' and 'datasets' deviate from this pattern but remain readable. No chaotic mixing of conventions like camelCase and snake_case is present, so consistency is high overall.

Tool Count3/5

With 34 tools, the count is on the higher side for a single server, yet the tool set covers a broad domain of data access, analysis, and monitoring (data pipelines, prediction markets, compliance scans). Given the variety of distinct capabilities offered, 34 is borderline but not excessive enough to drop to a 2, as each tool addresses a concrete need.

Completeness5/5

The tool set offers a remarkably complete lifecycle for data operations: discovery (suggest_questions, discover_tools, datasets), entity resolution (resolve_entity, metadata), querying and retrieval (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, query), analysis and comparison (compare_entities, entity_profile, validate_claim), memory (remember, recall, forget), monitoring (subscribe, recent_alerts, polymarket_edge_tracker), and feedback (pipeworx_feedback). Niche tools like bet_research, scan_dependency, and generate_llms_txt further fill domain-specific gaps. No obvious missing operations for the stated purpose.

Resources