Skip to main content
Glama

deckofcards

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. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations are all false, offering minimal safety or side-effect info. The description compensates richly by disclosing rate limits (5/day), the claim_token return flow, daily team review, roadmap impact, free cost, and no quota impact. This goes far beyond structured annotations.

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 carries essential information: purpose, usage triggers, exclusions, claim-token mechanics, rate limit, cost. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then logically flows into constraints and operational details. No fluff or repetition.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains what to expect (claim_token on filing, status/changes on later check). It covers all parameters, nested context, rate limiting, applicability boundaries, and the feedback loop, making it complete for an agent to invoke 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 schema descriptions already handle the basics. The description adds meaningful workflow context for claim_token (filing without an account returns the token) and clarifies the 'other' type via the context object. This is above the baseline but not hugely needed given the schema's completeness.

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, specific verb+resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It enumerates the exact feedback types (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and is unmistakably distinct from all sibling tools, none of which are feedback-related.

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 for each feedback type and a clear exclusion: 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection — if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead.' Also explains how to use claim_token later, giving complete operational guidance.

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

All deckofcards 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are functionally identical (beta just has experimental routing), and the Polymarket suite (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) all revolve around prediction-market signal detection with unclear boundaries. Also ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap heavily.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of verb-first (draw_cards, resolve_entity, discover_tools) and noun-first (entity_profile, new_deck, recent_alerts) styles, with inconsistent prefixes (pipeworx_feedback vs ask_pipeworx) and no unifying convention. Some tools are bare verbs (recall, remember), others are noun phrases (polymarket_edges).

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for a server named 'deckofcards' — only 3 tools relate to cards. Even as a general-purpose data/research server, 34 is on the high end and includes many near-duplicates (ask_pipeworx variants) and highly specialized tools that could be consolidated.

Completeness3/5

The research side is fairly complete (lookup, grounding, comparison, profiles, claim verification, memory, subscriptions), but the card-deck functionality is minimal (only create, draw, shuffle) and lacks any deck inspection or hand management. The server's scope is unclear, making it hard to assess true coverage.

Resources