Skip to main content
Glama

Fas

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite annotations all being false, the description discloses rate limits (5/day), quota exemption, the claim_token return flow, and the team's daily digest process. It fully informs the agent of side effects and follow-up behavior without needing annotation hints.

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?

Every sentence carries essential information, front-loaded with purpose, then usage, exclusions, token mechanics, and limits. It is long but dense, with zero filler, making it appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 compensates for the lack of an output schema by explaining the return token and how to later retrieve resolution status. It covers purpose, usage boundaries, rate limits, and follow-up, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to reason about.

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%, yet the description adds crucial meaning beyond the schema: the claim_token can be used standalone with no other arguments, and message content should describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools rather than pasting end-user prompts. This enhances an already well-documented 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx by scoping feedback to Pipeworx tools only, and explicitly contrasts with other MCP servers' 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use scenarios (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and an explicit exclusion with an alternative action ('file it with that server instead'). This level of directional guidance exceeds that of typical tool descriptions.

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

All Fas 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs. deep_research vs. validate_claim). However, a few pairs like ask_pipeworx_beta vs. ask_pipeworx and validate_claim vs. ask_pipeworx_grounded have overlapping roles, even though descriptions do differentiate them.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use snake_case consistently, and many follow a verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, subscribe). Some exceptions like entity_profile, recent_alerts, and pipeworx_trending break the strict verb_noun pattern but remain readable and stylistically uniform.

Tool Count3/5

With 35 tools, this is above the typical 'well-scoped' range and exceeds the 25-tool threshold for heavy servers. However, the server covers a very broad domain (financial data, prediction markets, agriculture, AI visibility, memory, subscriptions), which partially justifies the count, but it still feels bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers all major workflows: data querying (ask_pipeworx, deep_research), entity resolution and comparison, prediction-market analysis, agricultural data (FAS tools), memory (remember/recall/forget), and subscription management (subscribe/unsubscribe/list). The only minor gap is lack of direct write/update operations for external data, but that's not expected for a read-heavy platform.

Resources