Skip to main content
Glama

Emsc

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 the annotations (which only indicate readOnly=false), the description discloses important behavioral traits: filing without an account returns a claim_token for later follow-up, the tool is rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, it's free and doesn't count against quota, and feedback is read daily with direct roadmap impact. This gives the agent realistic expectations about side effects, limits, and outcomes.

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 dense but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, usage triggers, exclusions, identifier guidance, message content rules, token flow, roadmap impact, and rate limits. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and immediately scopes applicability, making it easy for an agent to parse quickly.

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 the tool's complexity (4 params, nested context object, no output schema), the description covers all needed behavioral context: what to report, what not to report, how to structure message, token follow-up mechanism, and constraints. The schema fills in parameter syntax while the description supplies the operational workflow, making the tool fully self-contained for an agent.

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 each parameter already has a clear description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds cross-parameter insight by explaining that filing (message/type/context) returns a claim_token which can later be passed back to read resolution status, and it warns not to paste the end-user's prompt into message—valuable guidance not present in the schema.

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 enumerates concrete use cases: wrong/stale data (bug), missing catalog tool (feature/data_gap), and praise. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling research/query tools by scoping feedback exclusively to Pipeworx-served tools, so the agent knows exactly what this tool does and why it differs.

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 gives explicit when-to-use triggers tied to feedback types and an explicit when-not-to-use exclusion: if a tool came from a different MCP server, file it there instead. It also advises identifying Pipeworx tools by the connection's listed names and clarifies how to follow up on a filed report via claim_token, providing complete selection and invocation guidance.

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

All Emsc 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Multiple tools overlap: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, and the five prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker) cover adjacent tasks that require careful reading. However, descriptions are unusually explicit about when to prefer each, and non-overlapping domains (memory, subscriptions, earthquakes, npm) are clearly separated.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names are snake_case with a mostly verb-first pattern (ask_, compare_, discover_, generate_, list_, scan_, search_, validate_), making the surface predictable. Minor deviations like deep_research, entity_profile, and single-word verbs (remember, recall, forget) break the pattern slightly, but each family is internally consistent.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many,' and several could be consolidated — ask_pipeworx_beta is redundant today, and the prediction-market suite could fold into 2-3 tools. The count reflects a genuinely wide data platform with meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, ask_pipeworx) already covering discovery, so the surface feels heavy for an agent to triage.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are well covered: querying (ask_pipeworx, grounded, deep_research), research profiles (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes), input resolution (resolve_entity), fact-checking (validate_claim), memory lifecycle, and subscription lifecycle all have complete loops. Minor gaps exist, notably no tool to fetch a pipeworx:// citation URI directly (search_within expects already-fetched text), and some one-off tools like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency feel bolted on.

Resources