Skip to main content
Glama

Dwds

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?

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description carries full transparency burden. It discloses rate limiting (5 per identifier per day), quota behavior (free, doesn't count against tool-call quota), the claim_token workflow for retrieving status updates, and the policy of not pasting 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?

The description is long (~180 words) but every sentence earns its place: purpose, scope boundary, claim_token flow, rate limit, and pragmatic advice ('don't paste the end-user's prompt'). It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and structured logically, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains what happens on filing (returns a claim_token when no account) and how to later retrieve 'whether it was fixed and what changed'. Combined with rate limits, scope restrictions, and message guidance, it fully equips an agent to use this tool correctly for all feedback types.

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 meaningful extra context beyond the schema: it explains the claim_token round-trip usage with an example call (pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:'pwfb_…'})), and ties the type enum values to specific scenarios. This enriches understanding enough to warrant a 4.

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') and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings by limiting usage to Pipeworx-served tools and enumerating feedback categories (bug, feature/data_gap, praise). This clearly differentiates it from the research/query-focused sibling 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?

Explicitly states when to use ('Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data...'), when not to use ('if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead'), and provides a disambiguation rule ('Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists'). This is model-quality usage guidance with clear alternatives.

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

All Dwds 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical; the Polymarket betting tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc.) also overlap. The server name suggests a German dictionary, but most tools are unrelated, causing confusion about the set's focus.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names lack a consistent pattern: some use verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), some noun_noun (ai_visibility_check, dwds_frequency), some single words (forget, lemma), and some are acronyms (kwic). This mixed convention makes prediction of tool names difficult.

Tool Count3/5

At 36 tools, the set is large but not extreme. However, it attempts to cover too many domains (German language, prediction markets, AI visibility, npm packages, etc.), making it feel bloated and unfocused for a server named 'Dwds'.

Completeness2/5

For the German dictionary focus implied by the server name, tools are minimal (dwfs_frequency, lemma, snippet) and two are retired. For the broader data platform, there are gaps like no dedicated SEC filing search tool, relying on generic ask_pipeworx. The set feels incomplete for both intended purposes.

Resources