Skip to main content
Glama

Data Toronto

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 safety hints, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses rate limiting (5 per identifier per day), the claim_token mechanism for tracking feedback, how to use it later, and that it is free and doesn't count against tool-call quotas. It also shares operational details like daily digest reading and roadmap influence.

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 every sentence provides unique value: usage conditions, exclusions, token mechanics, and quota info. It is front-loaded with the main purpose. It could be slightly more structured (e.g., bullets), but it remains efficient and avoids redundancy.

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 has no output schema, but the description explains what the response will look like (claim_token) and how to retrieve status later. It covers prerequisites (none), rate limits, and what to include in feedback. Given the complexity of the feedback workflow, this is fully 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?

The input schema already covers all 4 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds extra value by giving a concrete example for claim_token usage ('pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})') and message guidance (be specific, don't paste the end-user prompt). This goes 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 first sentence states the action: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly identifies the resource (Pipeworx team) and the verbs (tell, report). It distinguishes itself from siblings by being the dedicated feedback channel for Pipeworx 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?

Explicitly specifies when to use the tool ('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 an exclusion: 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection' and directs users to file with other servers, naming alternative destinations.

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

All Data Toronto 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

Multiple query entry points have overlapping boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, suggest_questions and discover_tools both serve discovery/onboarding, and validate_claim overlaps with ask_pipeworx_grounded. With 34 tools including five Polymarket edge/scanner tools, an agent can easily select the wrong meta-tool despite the detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case, so there is no style chaos, but the pattern is inconsistent: verb-led names like ask_pipeworx and validate_claim mix with noun-led names like entity_profile, recent_alerts, and polymarket_arbitrage, plus bare memory verbs like remember/recall/forget. Related tools are also not aligned, such as ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is too many for a server branded 'Data Toronto', and many tools are only loosely related to the core data-access purpose: ask_pipeworx_beta, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, ai_visibility_check, and the memory trio feel like bolt-ons. Even granting Pipeworx's broad research scope, the set is over-stuffed rather than well-scoped.

Completeness4/5

The data-research surface is unusually comprehensive: search, deep research, entity resolution/profiling, comparison, claim validation, alerts/subscriptions, and Toronto open-data querying are all covered. The main gaps are Toronto-side metadata details like resource schemas/columns and a way to browse the full dataset catalogue without a keyword.

Resources