Skip to main content
Glama

emojihub

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?

All annotations are false, but the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses that filing without an account returns a claim_token, that the token can be used later to check status, that digests are read daily, that feedback is rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, and that it does not count against tool-call quota. No annotation 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 a single substantial paragraph, but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage criteria, exclusions, claim-token flow, rate limits, and quota impact. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and then layers in necessary operational details. Slightly long, but for a tool with this many nuances, it is appropriately sized and well-structured.

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 that there is no output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining the return behavior (claim_token, later status check). It also covers edge cases like anonymous use, wrong-server feedback, and rate limiting. The tool is fairly complex with nested objects and optional params, and this description leaves no critical gap in understanding.

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% and the schema already describes each parameter clearly. The description adds significant meaning beyond the schema, especially for claim_token (pass with no other arguments to read a previous report's status) and for message content (be specific, don't paste end-user prompts). These additions justify a score 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 distinguishes this feedback tool from sibling tools by scoping it to Pipeworx tools, and elaborates on the four feedback types (bug, feature, data_gap, praise), making the purpose unmistakable.

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: for wrong/stale data, missing features, data gaps, or praise. It also gives a clear exclusion: if the tool came from a different MCP server, file elsewhere. It even explains how to use claim_token later, plus rate limits, leaving no ambiguity about when and how to invoke this tool.

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

All emojihub 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among the numerous Pipeworx query and prediction market tools (e.g., polymarket_arbitrage vs. polymarket_edges vs. polymarket_fill_risk). Descriptions help differentiate them, so the ambiguity is minor.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names use a mix of verb_noun patterns (e.g., list_subscriptions, validate_claim), phrases (ask_pipeworx, bet_research), and standalone nouns (pipeworx_feedback). While readable, the lack of a single consistent convention makes the set feel less cohesive.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is on the high side, with many highly specialized prediction market and Pipeworx management tools. The server's name 'emojihub' suggests a narrow focus, but the actual scope is much broader, making the count feel somewhat inflated for its apparent purpose.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a vast domain: factual data retrieval, company profiles, comparisons, claim validation, prediction market analysis, memory, subscriptions, and emoji lookup. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tool for simple web search), but overall coverage is comprehensive.

Resources