Skip to main content
Glama

dnd5e

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
Behavior5/5

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

Despite annotations being all false, the description adds rich behavioral context: rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free and not counted against quota, anonymous filing returns a claim_token, and later passing that token returns status and resolution details. It also mentions that the team reads daily and signal affects roadmap. No contradictions with annotations.

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 a single dense paragraph but logically ordered: purpose, usage triggers, exclusions, token mechanic, rate limit. While every sentence adds value, the length is higher than strictly necessary and could benefit from bullet points for scannability. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, so it earns a strong score despite the paragraph format.

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 simple tool with 4 optional parameters and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs: when to use it, what to include, how to check a previous report, and operational limits (rate limit, quota). It explains the return token behavior that the missing output schema would otherwise leave unclear. This is 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining claim_token usage ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})') and giving general guidance on composing the message ('Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt'). This is above baseline but not exhaustive, since type and context are already well-documented in the schema.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' This clearly differentiates the feedback tool from siblings like ask_pipeworx or discover_tools. It names concrete categories (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) that map directly to the input schema enum.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is given for each feedback type ('Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug)...'). It also states a clear exclusion: 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection' and tells the agent to file with the correct server otherwise. This is exemplary usage guidance, including how to disambiguate Pipeworx tools.

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

All dnd5e 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

Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as the three ask_pipeworx variants, the memory tools (remember/recall/forget), and the subscription management tools. Additionally, the D&D tools are mixed with a large set of unrelated tools, causing confusion between domains.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools follow verb_noun pattern (e.g., get_class, list_spells), while others use descriptive noun phrases (e.g., ai_visibility_check, polymarket_arbitrage). There is no clear, predictable pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 35 tools, the count is high for a server ostensibly focused on D&D 5e. The inclusion of many unrelated tools from the Pipeworx ecosystem makes the set feel bloated and unfocused for the intended domain.

Completeness1/5

For the D&D 5e domain, only 4 tools exist (get_class, get_monster, get_spell, list_spells), which is severely incomplete. The remaining tools cover other domains, but they do not serve the server's primary purpose, leaving obvious gaps in functionality.

Resources