Skip to main content
Glama

Federal Register

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations offer no safety hints (all false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses rate limiting (5 per identifier per day), accountless claim_token behavior, the daily review process, that it is free, and that it does not consume tool-call quota. It also warns against pasting end-user prompts, adding privacy-relevant context beyond the schema.

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?

The description is longer than average, but every sentence earns its place: it front-loads the core purpose, then covers use cases, exclusions, token semantics, and operational constraints in a logical order. Nothing is redundant with the schema; the density is high without being rambling.

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 having no output schema, the description explains the important return behavior (claim_token and later status/resolution lookup), rate limits, and the workflow for follow-up. It is comprehensive enough for an agent to know when to call it, how to phrase feedback, and what to expect in reply.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter behavior beyond schema: claim_token usage is explained as returning a token for later lookup, and the 'no other arguments' constraint is made explicit. It does not deeply expand on context/message, but those are already well described in the 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 and resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly identifies the tool as a feedback channel and distinguishes it from the many research/query siblings by focusing on reporting issues, feature gaps, and praise for Pipeworx 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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance for each feedback type (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and an explicit exclusion: reports about tools from other MCP servers should be filed elsewhere. It even tells agents how to disambiguate uncertainty ('Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists').

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

All Federal Register 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Several tools are nearly indistinguishable: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical in behavior, and ask_pipeworx_grounded overlaps heavily with them. Additionally, entity_profile, compare_entities, deep_research, and validate_claim all cover similar company/factual research territory, creating frequent selection ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes multiple conventions: descriptive lowercase phrases (ai_visibility_check, compare_entities, valid claim) coexist with verb_noun (search_documents, recent_rules) and inconsistent underscores (ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded, resolve_entity). There is no single recognizable pattern.

Tool Count1/5

The server is named 'Federal Register' but only 3 of 34 tools (search_documents, recent_rules, get_document) relate to that domain. The other 31 tools form a sprawling Pipeworx data and prediction-market suite, making the count extreme and inappropriate for the declared purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the stated Federal Register domain, the surface is minimal: search, recent listing, and single-document retrieval, with no docket browsing, full-text search within documents, or agency-specific navigation. The broader Pipeworx capability set is comprehensive but irrelevant to the server's name, leaving obvious gaps for the actual purpose.

Resources