Skip to main content
Glama

Dropbox

by io.github.pipeworx-io
OverviewAdmin

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations are all false (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, destructive), so they provide little safety/behavioral context. The description compensates with several non-obvious behaviors: returns a claim_token when filing without an account, allows later lookup via passing that token as the only argument, is rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, is free, and doesn't count against tool-call quota. It also clarifies the team reads digests daily. Minor gap: doesn't state whether filed feedback can be edited/deleted, but the disclosed details go well beyond the 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core intent, then systematically covers scope, anti-guidance, account flow, and operational details. It's longer than ideal for a simple tool, but every sentence earns its place: the exclusion of other MCP servers is critical to prevent misrouting, and the rate limit/quota details are non-obvious. The only minor waste is the 'Not sure?' sentence, which somewhat restates the identification guidance given just before.

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 no output schema, the description provides comprehensive contextual coverage: what types of feedback are accepted, which servers' tools are in scope, how to identify them, the claim_token flow for following up, rate limits, cost, SLAs (daily digest), and roadmap impact. The parameter semantics are fully covered by the schema plus description, and the lack of an output schema is compensated by explaining what returns to expect (claim_token, status, changes). 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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents all parameters. The description adds context beyond the schema: clarifies the 'other' enum value meaning, explains the claim_token parameter's two-phase usage pattern (file then read), and ties the context object to 'which tool, pack, or vertical'. It slightly loses a point because the message parameter's requirement to reference Pipeworx tools rather than pasting end-user prompts is a usage nuance that could be more prominently connected to the parameter.

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 states a clear, specific verb+resource: tell the Pipeworx team about broken/missing/needed things, with distinct types (bug, feature, data_gap, praise). It also distinguishes itself from sibling research and file tools by focusing on feedback exclusively for Pipeworx-served tools, while siblings like ask_pipeworx or deep_research serve different purposes.

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 explicitly states when to use (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and when NOT to use (issues with other MCP servers' tools), including an alternative action ('file it with that server instead'). It also gives a clear disambiguation rule based on tool names and mentions the claim_token reversal to check status, which is a usage pattern.

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

All Dropbox 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.

Resources