Skip to main content
Glama

Disney

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 key behavioral traits beyond the annotations: rate limiting (5 per identifier per day), non-quota usage, the claim_token return mechanism, and the team's daily review process. These are not visible in the schema or annotations, so the description fills the gap 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?

Although the description is long, every sentence provides valuable information: purpose, scope boundary, claim_token flow, rate limits, and cost. It's front-loaded with the primary purpose and then layers details logically. No fluff or repetitive content.

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 has no output schema and several parameters, the description supplies necessary context: when to use, what to include, how to track a submission, and constraints. It also explains the team's responsiveness, helping the agent set expectations. The description is sufficiently complete for correct invocation and follow-up.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds useful semantics: it explains the claim_token parameter's dual purpose (filing vs. reading), and advises on message content ('don't paste the end-user's prompt'). This extra context elevates the parameter understanding beyond the schema alone.

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: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It enumerates specific use cases (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the sole feedback channel for Pipeworx 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance with examples, and importantly provides a clear exclusion: tools from other MCP servers should be reported elsewhere. It also explains the claim_token workflow, effectively telling the agent how and when to use the tool for follow-up.

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

All Disney 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
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a highly distinct purpose, from Disney character lookups to financial data and prediction market analysis. Agent can easily distinguish them by name and description.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions vary wildly: some use verb_noun (list_characters), others are phrases (ask_pipeworx) or compound nouns (polymarket_arbitrage). No consistent pattern across tools.

Tool Count1/5

34 tools is far too many for a Disney-themed server. Only 3 tools (list_characters, search_characters, get_character) relate to Disney; the rest are general-purpose data tools that belong elsewhere.

Completeness1/5

For a Disney server, the tool surface is severely incomplete. Missing basic CRUD for characters, no info on movies, parks, or media. Extraneous tools do not fill these gaps.

Resources