Skip to main content
Glama

Excuse

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. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only convey generic hints (readOnly=false, etc.), but the description adds critical behavioral details: filing without an account returns a claim_token for later status checks, rate limiting to 5 per identifier per day, free usage not counting against quota, and that the team reads digests daily. This goes well beyond what the annotations provide.

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 (8 sentences) but every sentence carries necessary context: purpose, usage cases, exclusions, token flow, rate limits, and quotas. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then builds supporting details. The length is justified given the potential for misuse, so it earns a 4 rather than a 5.

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 tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers nearly every angle: what counts as feedback, how to scope the report, how the claim_token works, what happens to the feedback, and operational limits. It is comprehensive enough for an agent to know exactly how and when to invoke this tool, even with no output schema.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining how to use claim_token ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback(...)') and by instructing users to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs rather than pasting prompts. This enriches the message and context parameters without fully re-explaining every field.

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 and resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It immediately distinguishes the tool from siblings by framing it as feedback for Pipeworx tools specifically, which no other sibling does.

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 requests, or praise. It also gives an explicit exclusion: do not report issues for tools from other MCP servers, and tells the user where to file those instead. This is textbook alternatives-and-exclusions guidance.

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

All Excuse 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim) all route to the same underlying 5,708-tool catalog with subtle behavioral differences that are easy to misselect. Entity-focused tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, scan_competitor_ai_presence) also overlap heavily in the data they return, making boundaries fuzzy.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but the word-order convention is mixed: verb-first (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, discover_tools) coexists with noun-first (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage, recent_changes). The inconsistent reversal in excuse_generate versus generate_llms_txt further breaks the predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

At 32 tools the set is well past the well-scoped range, and several entries feel like padding: ask_pipeworx_beta duplicates ask_pipeworx, while the seven Polymarket tools and five company-intelligence tools could each be consolidated into fewer distinct capabilities. The broad scope justifies a large surface, but this count makes the server difficult to navigate.

Completeness3/5

The core data-lookup lifecycle (resolve, fetch, ground, validate, research, compare) is well covered, and memory/subscription features round it out. Obvious gaps include no direct tool to read a pipeworx:// citation URI (despite deep_research referencing one), and the excuse_generate tool is an isolated one-off with no supporting tools in its domain.

Resources