Skip to main content
Glama

Fara

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false (neutral), so the description carries the burden and does so excellently. It discloses the return of a claim_token without an account, how to read status later, rate limiting (5 per identifier per day), and cost (free, doesn't count against quota). It also describes the team's digest review and roadmap impact, giving a full picture of the tool's behavior and consequences.

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?

Although longer than average, every sentence earns its place: purpose, use cases, exclusions, content guidance, token mechanism, review cadence, rate limit, and cost. The structure is front-loaded with the core purpose and flows logically. No fluff or redundancy exists; it is dense but highly scannable.

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 (one deeply nested), no output schema, and no annotation hints, the description comprehensively covers all behavior and edge cases: when to use, when not to use, how to reference Pipeworx tools, the claim-token lifecycle, rate limits, and cost. It fully compensates for the lack of an output schema by explaining what filing returns. The tool is simple, but the description leaves no gaps.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant semantic value beyond the schema. It explains the 'type' categories in context, clarifies the 'claim_token' flow with a concrete example, advises on 'message' specificity, and provides guidance on using 'context' for tool/pack/vertical references. The description enriches each parameter with practical usage context.

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 opening sentence, 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist,' clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools (which are all research/query tools) by being the only feedback mechanism. The description immediately establishes its unique role.

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 criteria: bug, feature/data_gap, praise, and other. It also gives a clear exclusion rule: 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection… file it with that server instead.' It further explains what to include ('in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs') and the claim-token workflow, offering comprehensive decision support.

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

All Fara 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

There are several clusters of tools with overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all do data-fetching/research with somewhat subtle differences. Polymarket tools also overlap (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, bet_research, polymarket_kalshi_spread). However, most tools have detailed descriptions that clarify their distinct roles, and the core data-lookup tools are differentiated by grounding level and scope.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent verb_noun or noun_verb pattern (e.g., search_registrants, list_foreign_principals, get_registrant_documents, subscribe, unsubscribe, remember, recall, forget, resolve_entity, validate_claim). Deviations include brand-name tools like ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, and polymarket_kalshi_spread that mix conventions but are still readable and predictable within their domain.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy for a single MCP server, especially with multiple overlapping research entry points (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions). The broad data-router nature of the server explains the size, but it is still a large surface that would be better consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The server covers its visible domains well: data lookup, grounded verification, entity profiling, comparison, change tracking, subscription lifecycle, memory, and FARA-specific queries. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tool for updating saved memory beyond forgetting/re-remembering, no tool to create custom alert types beyond the three supported categories), but the core workflows are complete.

Resources