Skip to main content
Glama

Fbi Artcrimes

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?

Annotations are all false and provide minimal safety hints, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: filing without an account returns a claim_token, that token can be passed back later to read resolution status, the tool is rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, and it is free and doesn't count against quota. This goes well beyond the structured fields and matches the actual mutation-like behavior implied by readOnlyHint=false.

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 longer than average but every section earns its place: purpose, scope restrictions, claim-token mechanics, rate limits, and reporting cadence. It is front-loaded with the core verb and resource, then flows into usage guidance and behavioral details. It could be tightened slightly (e.g., the 'we cannot fix it' point is repeated), but it remains well-structured and readable.

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?

Given no output schema and sparse annotations, the description carries the full burden of explaining return behavior and constraints. It covers the claim_token response, how to check resolution status, rate limiting, what to include/exclude, and the relationship to Pipeworx tools. This is complete enough for an agent to correctly invoke and later follow up on the tool.

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% and each parameter already has a description, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the claim_token round-trip workflow with a concrete example ('pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})') and by instructing users to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs rather than pasting end-user prompts. This supplements the schema without duplicating it.

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.' This clearly distinguishes the feedback tool from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or deep_research, which are all inquiry/investigation tools rather than a direct reporting channel.

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 gives explicit when-to-use conditions (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and an explicit when-not-to-use: if the tool came from a different MCP server, 'file it with that server instead.' It also clarifies scope by noting that Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists, providing unambiguous selection guidance.

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

All Fbi Artcrimes 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical routers (beta is currently exactly the same as stable), and the Polymarket tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, bet_research) all scan or price prediction-market opportunities with fuzzy boundaries. Other clusters like memory and subscriptions are clear, but enough overlap remains that an agent can easily misroute a query.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names are readable snake_case and many follow a verb_noun shape (list_art_crimes, resolve_entity, validate_claim), but the set also contains noun-phrase names (entity_profile, recent_alerts, pipeworx_feedback, deep_research) and brand-prefixed composites (polymarket_kalshi_spread, ask_pipeworx_beta). This is mixed but still scannable; there is no outright convention chaos.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools exceeds the 25+ threshold and is bloated for a server whose name promises FBI art crimes—only two tools relate to that name. Even treated as a Pipeworx platform, the sprawl makes the tool surface harder to navigate than necessary.

Completeness2/5

For the nominal art-crime domain, only list_art_crimes and get_art_crime exist, with no category search, statistics, or art-crime alerting, so an agent expecting art-crime workflows hits dead ends. The unrelated Pipeworx functionality is broadly covered, but that does not make the set complete for its stated server purpose.

Resources