Skip to main content
Glama

Easypost

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only provide all-false hints, so the description carries the full burden — and it delivers: discloses the rate limit (5 per identifier per day), the no-quota-count policy, the claim_token lifecycle (filing returns a token; passing it back later reads resolution status), the daily human review cadence, and roadmap impact. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

At ~170 words it is long, but every sentence carries distinct functional information: purpose, categories, exclusions, content rules, token flow, review cadence, rate limit, quota. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and organized logically from purpose to mechanics; only slightly longer than strictly necessary for a simple feedback tool.

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?

With no output schema, the description properly explains the return behavior (claim_token on filing, status read-back on later call). It covers routing exclusions, rate limiting, cost/quota, content expectations, and the daily review SLA. Combined with 100% schema parameter coverage and a clear sibling distinction, nothing material is left to discovery.

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 parameters are already well-documented (enum meanings, context fields, max chars). The description adds real value on top by explaining the claim_token's origin ('Filing without an account returns a claim_token'), the two-step claim workflow, and tying the context guidance ('Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs') to the structured context object.

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 enumerates the exact feedback categories (bug, feature, data_gap, praise). It clearly scopes the tool to Pipeworx-served tools only, which distinguishes it from any sibling tool.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance per category: '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).' It also gives a clear exclusion: tools from a different MCP server should be filed with that server instead, plus content rules (describe in terms of Pipeworx tools, don't paste end-user prompts).

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

All Easypost 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

The ask_pipeworx family (stable, beta, grounded) are nearly identical, with beta explicitly matching stable, creating clear misselection risk. The five polymarket_* tools and several research tools (deep_research, bet_research, entity_profile) also overlap in purpose despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are mostly snake_case and readable, with consistent prefixes (ask_pipeworx_, polymarket_, easypost_), but mix verb-first (validate_claim, resolve_entity) and noun-first (entity_profile, ai_visibility_check) conventions. The server name 'Easypost' does not align with the overwhelmingly Pipeworx-focused tool set.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is a heavy count, especially with three near-duplicate ask_pipeworx variants and many meta-tools. The set is also unfocused: only two shipping tools under an 'Easypost' label while the rest are a broad data-research and prediction-market platform, making the count feel bloated for the apparent scope.

Completeness2/5

As an Easypost server, shipping coverage is severely incomplete (rates and tracking only, no label purchase, address verification, or refunds). Within the Pipeworx tools, the cited pipeworx:// URIs have no direct fetch-by-URI tool, leaving a notable dead end for agents trying to retrieve full records.

Resources