Skip to main content
Glama

Data Tours

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / claim_token
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Read 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.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "type",
-  "message"
-]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With all annotation hints false, the description carries the full disclosure burden. It reveals the claim_token lifecycle (filing without an account returns one, pass it later to check status), rate limiting (5 per identifier per day), and that feedback is free and excluded from tool-call quota. It also warns against pasting end-user prompts, adding nuance beyond the schema.

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 each sentence earns its place: purpose, triggers, scope exclusion, content guidance, claim_token mechanism, team cadence, rate limit, and cost. It is somewhat lengthy but front-loaded and free of fluff.

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 complexity (two modes: filing vs. claim-based status check), the description fully explains the workflow, exclusions, and operational limits. The schema covers parameter formats; the description covers the human/team context (daily digests, roadmap impact) and the rate limit, making it adequate to use without external knowledge.

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 describes all four parameters thoroughly (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds usage-level semantics: it instructs to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs and not to paste end-user prompts, which informs the `message` and `context` parameters. It also clarifies the `claim_token` round-trip pattern, though the schema already contains that.

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 purpose: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It then enumerates concrete use cases (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and explicitly limits scope to Pipeworx-served tools, separating it from sibling research/query 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?

It provides explicit when-to-use triggers tied to the `type` enum (wrong/stale data → bug, missing tool → feature/data_gap, unexpectedly good → praise). It also names the alternative behavior: if the tool came from another MCP server, file it there instead, and it offers a heuristic for identifying Pipeworx tools ('tool names are the ones this connection lists').

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

All Data Tours 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. Even closely related tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research are well-differentiated by their use cases and safety guarantees. The multiple polymarket tools each focus on a unique aspect (arbitrage, edge scanning, persistence, fill risk, cross-venue spreads), avoiding ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use lowercase with underscores, following a mostly verb_noun or domain_prefix_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, resolve_entity). A few names like dataset_info and ai_visibility_check deviate slightly from a strict verb_noun structure, but the overall pattern is predictable and readable.

Tool Count4/5

With 33 tools, the server is on the heavier end of the well-scoped range. However, the count is justified by the breadth of functionality: data queries, prediction markets, entity resolution, memory, monitoring, and more. The tools each serve a specific purpose, and none feel redundant.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a wide range of use cases including data retrieval, comparison, research, monitoring, and memory. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for placing prediction market trades or creating/updating Tours Métropole datasets), but these are likely intentional scope choices. Core workflows are well-supported.

Resources