Skip to main content
Glama

Dummyjson

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false), the description adds significant behavioral context: rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free and not counted against quota, filing without an account returns a claim_token, and the team reads digests daily affecting roadmap. It also warns not to paste end-user prompts. No contradiction 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Although the description is long, every sentence carries essential information with no fluff. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose, then details usage, exclusions, and behavioral notes. The structured semicolon-delimited type definitions keep it readable.

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 tool with no output schema, the description fully explains return behavior (claim_token on filing, status on later lookup), rate limits, scope restrictions, and the expected message format. It leaves no critical gap for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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 a baseline of 3 is appropriate. The description adds extra semantics beyond the schema by explaining the claim_token workflow (pass it back later to read whether it was fixed) and constraining the message field ('don't paste the end-user's prompt'). This pushes it 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly scopes the tool to feedback about Pipeworx tools/packs and distinguishes it from sibling tools by saying it is 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection' and not for 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 explicitly states when to use the tool (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and when not to use it (feedback about other MCP servers), even telling the agent to file with that server instead. It also explains how to use claim_token later to check status, covering the full usage lifecycle.

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

All Dummyjson 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
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., multiple tools for data retrieval (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile) that differ only in nuance, and the inclusion of both DummyJSON and Pipeworx tools creates confusion about which domain to use for what. Agents will struggle to select the correct tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: Pipeworx tools use diverse patterns (verb_noun like 'validate_claim', noun like 'entity_profile', verb like 'forget'), while DummyJSON tools use simple nouns (posts, comments). No consistent pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

43 tools is excessive for a server named 'Dummyjson'. The majority are Pipeworx tools unrelated to fake data, making the set feel bloated and unfocused. The count is too large for the apparent scope.

Completeness3/5

For a fake data API, the set is incomplete: it only provides read operations (fetch, search) with no create, update, or delete capabilities. However, for the Pipeworx portion, the read coverage is extensive, so it's not severely lacking overall.

Resources