Skip to main content
Glama

Europeana

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?

With all annotations set to false, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It clearly explains the claim_token workflow for follow-up reads, rate limits (5 per day), no tool-call quota impact, and how feedback influences the roadmap. No contradictions with annotations are present.

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 well-structured, starting with the core purpose and then expanding into usage, exclusions, and operational details. Each sentence earns its place, though the overall length could be trimmed slightly without losing value. The front-loading ensures the essential purpose is immediately clear.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explicitly explains the return behavior (claim_token) and the follow-up read mechanism. It covers the tool's scope, usage rules, and operational constraints (rate limit, quota), making it sufficiently complete for a feedback submission tool with optional parameters.

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 already provides 100% coverage of parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context by elaborating the claim_token usage (pass it back later) and by advising users to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, which enriches the 'message' and 'context' 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 clearly states the tool's function with a specific verb ('Tell the Pipeworx team') and a resource ('something is broken, missing, or needs to exist'). It enumerates distinct feedback types (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and differentiates itself from siblings by being the sole feedback channel for Pipeworx 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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool (for bugs, feature/data_gap, praise) and when not to use it, directing users to file issues for non-Pipeworx MCP servers elsewhere. It also offers practical guidance on what to include and avoid in the message, making the usage criteria unambiguous.

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

All Europeana 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., three versions of ask_pipeworx for similar tasks, and several research/analysis tools (bet_research, deep_research, entity_profile) with unclear boundaries. The mix of Europeana-specific tools with a broad research toolkit creates confusion.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are inconsistent, mixing snake_case (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx), verb_noun patterns (compare_entities, resolve_entity), and short names (search, record, forget). No clear naming convention is followed throughout the set.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is excessive for a Europeana-focused server, as only 3 tools (search, record, search_within) are directly related to Europeana. The rest are a broad, unrelated toolkit, making the server feel like a kitchen sink rather than a cohesive collection.

Completeness2/5

The Europeana-specific tool surface is severely incomplete, lacking browse collections, advanced filters, or entity linking. The inclusion of many unrelated tools does not compensate for the gaps in the core domain, resulting in a poorly scoped offering.

Resources