Skip to main content
Glama

EUR-Lex

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With all annotations false, the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses side effects (feedback submission), rate limits ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), 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'). No contradiction with annotations.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: purpose, conditions, exclusions, workflow, expectations, and limitations. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses clear paragraph breaks for scannability.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's workflow: when to file, how to phrase feedback, what to expect (daily digests, roadmap influence), rate limits, and claim_token mechanism. Even without an output schema, it explains return behavior and follow-up usage.

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 has detailed descriptions (type enum meanings, message specs, claim_token usage). The description adds extra guidance beyond schema, such as 'don't paste the end-user's prompt' and clarifies claim_token usage. This exceeds the baseline 3 for high schema coverage.

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 clear, specific verb+resource statement: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It explicitly scopes the tool to 'tools served by this Pipeworx connection,' distinguishing it from siblings and other MCP servers.

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: '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 clear when-not-to-use instructions for tools from other servers and offers a check: 'Not sure? 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 EUR-Lex 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Multiple tools appear to do nearly the same thing: ask_pipeworx, ask_ipeworx_beta (explicitly identical at the moment), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route questionanswering in a very similar way. Even with long descriptions, the sheer number of overlapping query/research/analysis tools (ai_visibility_check vs scan_comperitor_ai_presence, all polymarket_*) would make an agent uncertain which to call.

Naming Consistency2/5

The set uses snake_case everywhere but that is the only consistent part. There is a mess of verb_noun patterns, noun_verb patterns (cjeu_search vs search_legislation, cj_judgment vs get_document), bare noun phrases (entity_profile, compliance_index, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges), and verb phrases (ask_ipeworx, generate_elms_txt, resolve_entry). A user cannot predict whether the noun comes first, so naming is readable but not predictable.

Tool Count2/5

39 tools is far over the 25+ threshold for a coherent set, and a large number of them (predictor markets ten, AI visibility, memory, subscriptions, pipework meta-tools) are outside the EUR-Lex legal research domain. The total count suggests a bundled everything-server rather than a focused legal-research MCP. It is not extreme enough for a 1 because 39 is still within a region where a broader meta-pipework suite could plausibly exist — but it's still too many.

Completeness4/5

For the EUR-Lex domain, the legal tools are nearly complete: search_legislation + compliance_index locate acts, get_metadata/list_articles/get_article/get_document read them, and cjeu_search/cjeu_judgment cover case law. Missing links that would make it fully seamless are amendment tracking, cross-references and direct CELEX/EURL-Lex citation search integration, but all basic 'find and read an act or judgment' workflows are supported.

Resources