Skip to main content
Glama

Fcc

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 only set false hints, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses rate limits ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), cost ('Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota'), the claim_token mechanism for later retrieval, and the team's daily digest process. This is rich behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 but each sentence adds value—no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. It could be slightly more concise, but the complexity of the claim_token mechanism and exclusions justifies the 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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains what happens on filing (returns claim_token) and how to use it later. It covers rate limits, cost, scope, and content guidance. For a tool with nested objects and optional params, this is fully complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the claim_token workflow ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:'pwfb_…'})') and clarifying context usage ('Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs'). This goes beyond schema descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It specifies the resource (Pipeworx tools) and the verb (feedback/report), and distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on reporting issues rather than querying data.

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: bug, feature, data_gap, praise. Also gives an explicit when-not-to-use: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead.' This differentiates from alternatives and gives clear context.

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

All Fcc 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

Several tools cluster around the same core purpose: the three ask_pipeworx variants, the three census reverse-geocoders, and the six Polymarket analysis tools. Descriptions are detailed enough to disambiguate most choices, but ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, creating genuine ambiguity. An agent could easily select the wrong tool in these overlapping families.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names mix verb-initial actions (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity) with noun-initial compound names (census_block, entity_profile, polymarket_edges). The polymarket_* family is internally consistent, but the set as a whole lacks a uniform verb_noun convention. Single-word verbs like remember, recall, and forget further break the pattern.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, this exceeds the 'too many' threshold of 25 and includes clear redundancy: ask_pipeworx_beta duplicates ask_pipeworx, county_for_point is a thin wrapper over the same service as census_area/census_block, and scan_competitor_ai_presence just loops ai_visibility_check. The broad scope does not justify this many tools, and the set would be better split into focused servers.

Completeness4/5

Each sub-domain has solid lifecycle coverage: memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/list/unsubscribe/recent_alerts, and company research has resolve_entity/entity_profile/compare_entities/recent_changes. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct pipeworx:// citation-fetching tool), but no critical dead ends that would cause agent failures.

Resources