Skip to main content
Glama

Estat Japan

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the sparse annotations (all false hints), the description discloses operational constraints: rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), zero cost ('Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota'), and the claim_token lifecycle ('Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later ... to read whether it was fixed and what changed'). It also states that the team reads digests daily, giving the agent a sense of expected impact.

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 long but front-loaded with the core purpose and logically sequenced: what, when, exclusions, token flow, operational notes. Every sentence adds necessary detail for this feedback tool, though it could be tightened by trimming the duplicated 'Pipeworx connection' explanation. Structure is clear with natural topic transitions.

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 fully compensates by explaining the return token and how to poll for resolution. It also covers scope, rate limits, costs, and expected response time, making it self-contained for an agent to decide and invoke correctly. The nested context object is clarified as optional, and the use-case examples remove ambiguity.

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?

The input schema has 100% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the token-based follow-up flow with a concrete example (pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})) and tying parameter usage to real scenarios. However, the schema descriptions already cover most parameter semantics, so the increment is modest.

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: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist,' clearly naming the resource (Pipeworx team) and the purpose. It enumerates concrete feedback types (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and distinguishes itself from siblings by restricting to Pipeworx-served tools, which is essential for differentiation.

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 criteria: '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).' It also gives a clear when-not-to-use exclusion for tools from other MCP servers, plus a practical disambiguation tip ('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 Estat Japan 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

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially the ask_pipeworx variants and Polymarket tools, but detailed descriptions help differentiate. Some tools like 'discover_tools' and 'suggest_questions' also have similar discovery roles, causing potential confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names follow snake_case but lack a consistent pattern: some start with verbs (e.g., 'ask_pipeworx', 'compare_entities'), others with nouns (e.g., 'entity_profile', 'recent_changes'), and prefixes like 'pipeworx_' and 'polymarket_' are used sporadically, making the naming scheme mixed but still readable.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a server named 'Estat Japan', which should focus on Japanese statistics. The majority of tools are general-purpose Pipeworx tools, diluting the scope and making the count feel bloated for the stated purpose.

Completeness2/5

The e-Stat tools (list_data_catalog, search_stats, get_metadata, get_data) provide basic read-only access but lack update or delete operations. The inclusion of many unrelated tools leaves significant gaps for Japanese statistics, and the overall surface is incomplete for the server's implied domain.

Resources