Skip to main content
Glama

Dev Feeds

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Despite all annotations being false, the description discloses key behavioral aspects: it returns a claim_token if filed without an account, supports later lookup via the token, is rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, and does not count against tool-call quota. It also notes the team reads digests daily. This exceeds the annotations, though it does not describe the full return payload.

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 moderately long but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, usage triggers, scope exclusion, content guidance, token workflow, team cadence, rate limit, and cost. It is structured logically and dense with information, though it could be trimmed slightly without losing value.

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?

For a feedback tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: purpose, usage, exclusions, token lifecycle, rate limiting, and cost. It even explains how to check resolution status, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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 provides 100% parameter coverage, with descriptions for type enum, context object, message, and claim_token. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the claim_token usage flow (pass it back later) and advising on message content (not pasting end-user prompts, referencing Pipeworx tools/packs), elevating it beyond the schema baseline.

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 function: telling the Pipeworx team about broken, missing, or desired tool functionality. It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on feedback for Pipeworx tools specifically, unlike the research/feed tools listed.

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 provides when-to-use scenarios (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and when-not-to-use, with a clear alternative of filing with the other MCP server. Also advises against pasting end-user prompts and recommends referencing Pipeworx tool/pack names.

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

All Dev Feeds 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and similar data query tools. However, detailed descriptions help agents differentiate.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names consistently use snake_case and a mix of verb_noun and noun_verb patterns. No camelCase is present, but some tools like 'generate_llms_txt' have embedded acronyms, which slightly reduces consistency.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is high, but the server covers a wide range of functionalities (data lookups, prediction markets, RSS feeds, memory). Some tools could be combined, but the count is within reasonable limits for a comprehensive tool server.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers major areas like entity lookups, prediction market analysis, data retrieval, and memory management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no RSS feed deletion tool), but overall it is quite comprehensive.

Resources