Skip to main content
Glama

Devto

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses behavioral details well beyond the annotations: rate-limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), quota exemption ('doesn't count against your tool-call quota'), follow-up mechanics (claim_token flow), and the team's daily digest process. All annotations are false, so the description carries the full burden, and it does so thoroughly.

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?

While lengthy, every sentence adds essential information. The structure is logical: primary purpose, feedback categories, exclusion criteria, token flow, rate limits, and free status. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses concise phrasing without redundancy.

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 (multiple feedback types, optional nested context, claim_token for follow-up), the description covers all necessary aspects: usage context, behavioral constraints, and the token retrieval process. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently explains what to expect (claim_token and status updates).

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% with rich parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by advising not to paste the end-user's prompt, explaining the claim_token round-trip usage, and clarifying the context field's purpose (which tool, pack, or vertical). This elevates the score above 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 explicitly states the tool's function: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly enumerates feedback categories (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying that it reports on Pipeworx tools only, not tools from other MCP servers.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: bug reports for wrong/stale data, feature/data_gap for missing capabilities, praise for what works. It also gives clear when-not-to-use instructions: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead.' The fallback for uncertainty ('Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists') is particularly helpful.

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

All Devto 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with clear descriptions, but some overlap exists, e.g., ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded, and several entity/company tools that could be confused. Overall, well-described and mostly disambiguated.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow consistent patterns: snake_case, with clear prefixes for each group (e.g., polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, get_article, etc.). Naming is predictable and systematic, making it easy to understand the tool's domain and action.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is high for a server named 'Devto', where only a few tools actually relate to DEV.to. The majority are for Pipeworx data and Polymarket, which are unrelated. The tool count feels bloated and misaligned with the server's apparent primary purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the DEV.to domain, coverage is incomplete: lacks create/update/delete for articles and missing user profile management. The Pipeworx and Polymarket tools are extensive, but that doesn't compensate for the gaps in the core feature set implied by the server name.

Resources