Skip to main content
Glama

Faa Regulations

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?

Annotations are all neutral false values, so the description carries the burden and excels: it discloses the asynchronous token round-trip ('Filing without an account returns a claim_token'), rate limiting ('5 per identifier per day'), cost ('Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota'), and human review cadence ('team reads digests daily'). No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

A single dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and categories, then flows through exclusions, token mechanics, rate limits, and cost. Every sentence contributes operational value—no filler, no redundancy. The logical sequence makes it easy to scan despite its length.

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?

With no output schema and a non-trivial feedback workflow, the description covers the full lifecycle: what to file, exclusions, how to claim and later retrieve resolution status, frequency of human review, rate limiting, and quota impact. It leaves no critical operational question unanswered, making it fully self-contained for an agent.

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 schema already defines each parameter thoroughly. The description adds value by demonstrating the claim_token usage with a concrete call example ('pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})') and reinforcing that the message must reference Pipeworx tools/packs. It does not add much beyond the schema for `type` and `context`, hence 4 rather than 5.

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,' and immediately enumerates concrete categories (bug, feature/data_gap, praise). It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by scoping it exclusively to Pipeworx-served tools, even advising to file elsewhere for 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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data...', 'when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog', 'praise') and when NOT to use it (other MCP servers → file with that server). It also provides guidance on message phrasing and the claim_token flow, making alternatives and exclusions unmistakable.

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

All Faa Regulations 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

Multiple tools have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same 5,714-tool catalog with heavily overlapping purposes, and ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx. Similarly, bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, and polymarket_fill_risk all target prediction-market analysis and could easily be confused by an agent. The two FAA tools (faa_regulation, faa_search) are distinct, but they are buried among a dozen unrelated data-lookup and memory tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun or noun_verb pattern (faa_search, resolve_entity, compare_entities, validate_claim, discover_tools, unsubscribe). Minor deviations exist, such as ask_pipeworx and pipeworx_feedback lacking underscores, and the polymarket_* family mixes noun-led names, but overall the naming is readable and predictable.

Tool Count1/5

33 tools for a server named 'Faa Regulations' is a severe mismatch: only 2 of the 33 tools (faa_regulation, faa_search) relate to FAA regulations, with the rest covering general data lookups, prediction markets, SEC filings, memory storage, npm dependency checking, and llms.txt generation. The count is far too high for the stated domain, and most tools do not belong in this server at all.

Completeness2/5

The actual FAA surface is thin: faa_search provides keyword lookup and faa_regulation returns full text or a part's section list, so basic citation-lookup workflows work, but there is no update/amendment tracking, no browse-by-part navigation beyond a section list, and no related aviation data such as NOTAMs or TFRs. The dominant Pipeworx tool family is unrelated to FAA regulations, so an agent using this server for its apparent purpose would hit dead ends quickly.

Resources