Skip to main content
Glama

Entertainment Feeds

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite annotations carrying no useful hints (all false), the description fully discloses behavior: filing returns a claim_token, which can be passed later to check status, rate-limiting to 5 per identifier per day, free quota, and daily human review. This goes well beyond the annotations and sets clear expectations.

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 dense paragraph but is front-loaded with the tool's purpose and use cases, and every sentence contributes meaningful information (exclusions, token flow, rate limits, quota). It could be more scannable with structured sections or bullets, but it is not verbose or redundant.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool's medium complexity, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description covers the necessary context: what to report, how to phrase it, token-based follow-up, and rate limits. A minor gap is that it does not explicitly describe the return payload when an account is used or when the claim_token is resolved, but this is enough for correct invocation.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds valuable guidance beyond the schema: it warns against pasting end-user prompts and explains the claim_token round-trip workflow, making the parameter semantics more actionable. It does not, however, add extra detail to the type or context parameters 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 verb+resource pairing—'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist'—and immediately enumerates the concrete use cases (bug, feature/data_gap, praise). This clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or discover_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?

It provides explicit when-to-use guidance (wrong/stale data, missing tool, praise) and explicit when-not-to-use guidance (feedback about non-Pipeworx MCP servers, with instruction to file those with the respective server). It even offers a heuristic for disambiguation ('Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists').

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

All Entertainment Feeds 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
Disambiguation3/5

While most tools have distinct purposes, there is notable overlap between the ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and deep_research. Similarly, bet_research and polymarket_edges both analyze betting opportunities. These overlapping tools can cause confusion for an agent.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow a snake_case pattern, but the verbs used are highly varied (ask_, bet_, compare_, deep_, discover_, entity_, fetch_, forget_, generate_, list_, pipeworx_, polymarket_, read_, recall_, recent_, remember_, resolve_, scan_, search_, subscribe_, suggest_, unsubscribe_, validate_). This lack of a consistent verb_noun pattern makes it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for an 'Entertainment Feeds' server. The majority of tools are unrelated to entertainment (e.g., SEC filings, FDA drugs, FRED data, Polymarket betting). Many of these should belong to a separate 'data-access' server, making the scope unwieldy and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

For an entertainment feeds server, the set is incomplete. It can list and read curated feeds and fetch arbitrary RSS, but lacks tools for managing subscriptions to those feeds, searching across feeds, or creating feeds. The inclusion of many non-entertainment tools doesn't compensate for these gaps.

Resources