Skip to main content
Glama

Washington State Open Data

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations include readOnlyHint:false, destructiveHint:false but nothing about idempotency or side effects. The description adds that filing without an account returns a claim_token (workflow implication), rate-limiting to 5/day, that reports are read daily and signal affects roadmap, and that it doesn't count against quota. This goes beyond annotations to convey process and side effects.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage triggers, exclusions, workflow, constraints, and effects. It uses scannable punctuation (parentheticals, bullet-like semicolons) and focuses on actionable guidance.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a feedback tool with no output schema, the description explains the return token mechanism, expected behavior (reads digests daily, signal affects roadmap), and rate limits. It lacks a verbatim output example but the claim_token explanation is detailed enough to complete the workflow.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

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

Schema coverage is 100% so the baseline is 3. Description adds some semantics: explains the claim_token usage pattern ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})') and clarifies what 'context' is for ('Optional structured context: which tool, pack, or vertical this relates to'). But most parameter meaning (type enum, message constraints) is already in 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 description clearly states the tool's purpose: to send feedback to the Pipeworx team about broken, missing, or needed tools. It specifies the verb ('Tell the Pipeworx team') and resource (feedback about Pipeworx tools), and distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx by scoping it to feedback about the connection's 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?

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).' Excludes tools from other MCP servers, frames edge cases ('Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists.'), and gives a follow-up usage pattern (claim_token).

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

All Washington State Open Data 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but there is overlap between ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, all serving data retrieval. Also, prediction market tools (e.g., bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage) are closely related, causing potential ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: mostly snake_case (ask_pipeworx, entity_profile) but includes camelCase (ai_visibility_check). No clear pattern, mixing verb_noun and other structures.

Tool Count1/5

33 tools is excessive for a server named 'Washington State Open Data'; only 3 tools (datasets, metadata, query) are directly relevant, while the rest are unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket tools. The count does not match the server's stated scope.

Completeness1/5

The tool set severely misaligns with the server name: it covers general data and prediction markets rather than Washington State Open Data. Only basic query and metadata tools exist for the stated domain, leaving many common dataset operations (e.g., CRUD) missing and providing entirely irrelevant functionality.

Resources