Skip to main content
Glama

Ecos Kr

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.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (all false), the description discloses key behaviors: filing without an account returns a claim_token, rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free and doesn't count against quota, and team reads digests daily. It also explains the claim_token workflow for reading resolution status. This is rich context beyond what annotations provide and there is no contradiction.

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 dense but well-structured, front-loaded with a clear summary and then covering usage, exclusions, formatting, and policy. Every sentence contributes value, though a few phrases (e.g., 'Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists') could be trimmed without losing meaning. Still, it remains concise for the complexity it covers.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return mechanism (claim_token), the resolution workflow, rate limits, scope boundaries, and formatting expectations. It leaves little ambiguity about when and how to use the tool, making it complete for a feedback submission tool.

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% with detailed descriptions for all four parameters. The description adds extra semantics, especially for claim_token: 'pass the pwfb_… token that filing returned, with no other arguments' and explains that filing returns this token. This clarifies the usage pattern beyond the schema's generic description.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It specifies feedback types (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and explicitly distinguishes from siblings by noting 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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and when-not-to-use guidance (if the tool is from a different MCP server, file with that server instead). It also gives formatting advice (describe in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, don't paste the end-user's prompt), making it clear how to use the tool effectively.

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

All Ecos Kr 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tool families overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are functionally identical today, and the polymarket_edges/arbitrage/fill_risk/kalshi_spread family plus entity_profile/recent_changes/compare_entities cover adjacent jobs. The descriptions are detailed enough to separate them with careful reading, but an agent could easily select the wrong one without deep inspection.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set has recognizable prefixes like ecos_, ask_pipeworx, and polymarket_, but it also mixes verb_noun names (validate_claim, discover_tools), bare verbs (remember, forget, recall), reversed/gerund forms (bet_research, pipeworx_trending), and special tokens (generate_llms_txt). The naming is readable on a per-family basis but not predictable across the full surface.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is above the comfortable range for a coherent tool set, and several entries are near-duplicates or wrappers: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, and scan_competitor_ai_presence wraps ai_visibility_check. The prediction-market and company-research families could be consolidated without losing capability.

Completeness4/5

For the server's broad scope, lifecycle coverage is strong: ECOS has search/items/get/indicators, subscriptions have create/list/read/cancel, memory has save/read/delete, and the data-research surface covers lookup, grounded verification, comparison, profiles, changes, and discovery. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct tool to fetch a pipeworx:// record by URI or execute a single catalog tool directly, but these are workable.

Resources