Skip to main content
Glama

Ensembl

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 behavioral hints beyond non-read-only, but the description discloses several important behaviors: rate limits (5 per identifier per day), free usage not counting against quota, anonymous filing returning a claim_token, the token's later use for status checks, and daily digest review cadence. This far exceeds the annotation baseline.

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, use cases, exclusion, token mechanics, rate limits, and roadmap impact. It is front-loaded with the main verb and resource, and the structure flows logically from what/why to how/when.

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?

For a feedback tool with no output schema, the description explains return behavior (claim_token, later status read), operational constraints (daily rate limit, quota exemption), and appropriate content (mention Pipeworx tools/packs, not end-user prompts). It covers all necessary context for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents each parameter. The description adds value by clarifying claim_token usage (pass it back to read resolution status) and by instructing users to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs rather than pasting end-user prompts. This is meaningful extra semantics beyond 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, action-oriented purpose: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' This clearly identifies the verb+resource and immediately distinguishes this feedback tool from the many sibling research/lookup 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and an explicit when-not-to-use with a concrete alternative: if the tool came from a different MCP server, file it with that server instead. It even offers a heuristic for identifying Pipeworx tools. This is model-level guidance.

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

All Ensembl 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There is heavy overlap in the ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, bet_research, validate_claim) — several are near-identical 'route a natural-language question to a source' tools differing only by small qualifiers. ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence and entity_profile vs compare_entities vs recent_changes also blur together. An agent could easily misselect among these.

Naming Consistency4/5

The dominant convention is snake_case verb_noun/noun_verb (list_subscriptions, scan_dependency, validate_claim, resolve_entity) which is fairly consistent, but there are several bare single-word verbs (lookup, sequence, variation, vep, xrefs, recall, remember, forget) that break the pattern. No camelCase is present, so the inconsistency is minor rather than chaotic.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is heavy, and the overwhelming majority (~31) are Pipeworx meta-tools (subscriptions, memory, feedback, trend, discovery, llms.txt generation) that have nothing to do with the server's declared Ensembl identity. Only about 7 tools are actually genomics-related, so the count is inflated by off-domain additions that dilute the surface.

Completeness2/5

For the Ensembl domain, the surface covers gene lookup, symbol resolution, sequence retrieval, orthologs, SNPs, variant effect prediction, and xrefs — but misses major Ensembl capabilities like gene trees/families, regulatory features, comparative/multi-species alignments, expression data, phenotypes, GO/ontology annotations, and region/overlap queries. Conversely the Pipeworx tools are complete for their own domain but irrelevant here, leaving the declared domain notably incomplete.

Resources