Skip to main content
Glama

Data Providence

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?

The description discloses behavior beyond annotations: the claim_token flow for later retrieval, the daily rate limit ('5 per identifier per day'), and that it is 'Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota.' Annotations only state non-read-only and non-destructive, so this context is genuinely additive.

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 long but each sentence earns its place, covering purpose, usage, exclusions, token mechanics, and rate limits. It is front-loaded with the purpose and could be slightly better structured with clearer paragraph breaks, but it avoids redundancy and wasted words.

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 description covers all relevant context: when to use, when not to use, how to provide feedback, what the claim_token does, rate limits, and cost/free status. No output schema exists, but the description explains the return token sufficiently. It is complete for a feedback-reporting tool with moderate complexity.

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%, satisfying the baseline of 3. The description adds further value by advising how to structure the message ('Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt') and by clarifying the claim_token usage pattern, moving it above baseline.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' This clearly states the tool's purpose and distinguishes it from siblings like ask_pipeworx, which is for asking questions rather than submitting feedback.

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?

It provides explicit when-to-use scenarios ('Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data... when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog... or when something worked surprisingly well') and an explicit exclusion ('ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection... file it with that server instead'). This leaves no ambiguity about when to invoke it.

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

All Data Providence 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

Most tools have distinct purposes, but several clusters overlap: ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_beta are currently functionally identical, polymarket_arbitrage / polymarket_edges / polymarket_kalshi_spread all hunt mispricings via different mechanisms, ai_visibility_check is wrapped by scan_competitor_ai_presence, and discover_tools vs suggest_questions both serve tool discovery. The rich descriptions mitigate but do not eliminate misselection risk.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are all snake_case and follow recognizable conventions: verb_noun for actions (compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim), domain-prefixed families (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, recent_*, ask_pipeworx_*), and a few bare verbs (remember, recall, query). Minor deviations like bet_research (noun_verb) and noun-only names (datasets, metadata) break the pattern, but the overall scheme is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many' and bundles several distinct domains — general data querying, prediction markets, AI visibility, memory, subscriptions, open data, and npm auditing — into one server. The breadth is defensible for a data platform, but the agent-facing surface is sprawling and would benefit from splitting into focused servers.

Completeness4/5

The core data workflow is well covered: discover (discover_tools, suggest_questions), resolve (resolve_entity), query (ask_pipeworx), ground (ask_pipeworx_grounded, validate_claim), research (deep_research), compare (compare_entities), profile (entity_profile), and changes (recent_changes). Prediction markets, memory, and subscriptions each have full lifecycles. The main gap is no tool for fetching returned pipeworx:// citation URIs directly, plus a few soft-failing sources.

Resources