Skip to main content
Glama

Data Ua

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?

Beyond the annotations (all false), the description discloses the two-step claim_token flow, rate limit (5/day/identifier), that it's free, that it doesn't count against tool-call quota, and that the team reads digests daily. No contradiction with annotations.

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 longer than typical but front-loaded with the core purpose and organized into clearly scoped sentences (use cases, exclusions, token flow, rate limit). Every sentence carries information relevant to correct usage.

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 no output schema and a two-step interaction, the description adequately explains what happens on first filing (returns claim_token) and how to use that token later. It also covers limits, scope, and what gets communicated, so an agent has enough context to invoke the tool correctly.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by giving a concrete usage example for claim_token ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})'), specifying it should be used with no other arguments, and advising not to paste the end-user's prompt in the message.

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 states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Tell') and resource ('the Pipeworx team') and enumerates the exact kinds of feedback (bug, feature/data_gap, praise). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx by explicitly scoping to feedback about 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?

It provides explicit when-to-use triggers (wrong data, missing tool, working well), a clear when-not-to-use case (other MCP servers), and names the alternative action ('file it with that server instead'). It also clarifies the scope ('ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection').

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

All Data Ua 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, though the three ask_pipeworx variants (standard, beta, grounded) are very similar, potentially causing confusion. The Polymarket and memory tool families are well-differentiated.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names use snake_case consistently, with a clear verb_noun pattern (e.g., resolve_entity, search_datasets, subscribe). No mixing of conventions.

Tool Count4/5

34 tools is high but justified given the breadth of the Pipeworx platform and Ukraine Open Data integration. The set covers a wide range of data sources and operations without feeling bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is thorough, covering querying, comparison, profiling, subscriptions, and memory. Minor redundancy in ask_pipeworx variants, but no significant gaps for the stated data-access purpose.

Resources