Skip to main content
Glama

dictionary

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

The description adds meaningful behavioral context beyond the annotations. It explains that filing without an account returns a claim_token and that passing it back later lets you 'read whether it was fixed and what changed.' It discloses rate-limiting ('5 per identifier per day'), that the team reads digests daily, and that the tool is free and doesn't count against quota. The only small gap is that the annotations already indicate it's not read-only (readOnlyHint=false) and not idempotent (idempotentHint=false), but the description doesn't explicitly discuss side effects like whether submitting the same message twice creates duplicate feedback entries. Still, the added operational details are substantial.

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 a single, dense paragraph but every sentence adds critical operational information. It front-loads the core purpose ('Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist') before diving into details. Despite its length, it is well-structured: purpose, when-to-use, exclusions, claim_token flow, SLA/roadmap, rate limit, and cost. No filler or 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 (feedback triage, claim_token flow, multi-server context), the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, what not to report here, how to check resolution status, rate limits, and cost implications. The parameters are fully documented in the schema and the description ties them together. No output schema exists, but the description explains what the claim_token returns ('status and, once resolved, what actually changed'), which compensates for the lack of an output schema. The description is fully self-sufficient for an agent.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Although the schema already provides detailed descriptions for all four parameters (100% coverage), the tool description adds crucial parameter semantics not in the schema: it explains the claim_token usage pattern ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})'), specifies that claim_token should be used 'with no other arguments,' and implicitly clarifies that filing with context is optional but beneficial. The description also clarifies the 'other' type by saying 'anything else' in the schema, but the description's examples make the enum values actionable. The description compensates and extends the schema's parameter docs, earning more than the baseline 3.

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 identifies the tool's purpose: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It specifies the verb (tell/report), the resource (Pipeworx team), and enumerates the exact types of feedback it accepts (bug, feature, data_gap, praise). It also includes an explicit instruction to only use it for tools served by this connection, which distinguishes it from general feedback tools or reporting to 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: '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).' It also states when NOT to use it: if the tool came from a different MCP server, file it with that server instead. It even provides a decision heuristic ('Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists.').

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

All dictionary 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have near-identical purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical today), and ask_pipeworx_grounded are the same router with only an evidence-extraction difference. polymarket_edges, bet_research, and polymarket_arbitrage also overlap heavily in surfacing mispricings, and ai_visibility_check is essentially a single-entity version of scan_competitor_ai_presence.

Naming Consistency3/5

There are recognizable patterns: ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, verb_noun pairs like define_word, get_synonyms, resolve_entity. However, conventions are mixed across the set — ask_pipeworx_beta uses a suffix, ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence are phrased in different styles, and memory tools (remember/recall/forget) follow yet another pattern. Readable but not predictable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is heavy for a single server, and many of them are meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, ask_pipeworx variants, pipeworx_trending, pipeworx_feedback, memory tools) that inflate the surface. The count would be defensible if each tool were orthogonal, but the overlap in research/Polymarket/memory areas means several tools do not earn their place.

Completeness4/5

For the actual Pipeworx data-access domain, coverage is quite rich: lookup, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, claim validation, subscriptions, memory, and discovery tools all exist. Minor gaps remain (e.g., no tool to manage account/API keys, patents soft-fail), but the core query-research-monitor lifecycle is well covered. The server name 'dictionary' is misleading — only two tools serve a dictionary purpose — yet the inferred domain from descriptions is a data gateway, for which the surface is strong.

Resources