Skip to main content
Glama

Feodotracker

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all negative flags, but the description discloses critical behavior: filing without an account returns a claim_token; passing it later reads status; rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day; free and uncounted. It also states feedback is read daily, setting expectations for async processing. No contradictions with 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 longer than average (~160 words), but each section earns its place: purpose, use cases, exclusions, message guidance, token flow, rate limit, and quota note. It is front-loaded with the core action and uses clear paragraph breaks. The only mildly extraneous line is 'The team reads digests daily...' which is informative but not strictly necessary.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description explains both submission mode (returns claim_token without an account) and follow-up mode (returns status and what changed). It also covers constraints (rate limit, quota). Minor gap: it doesn't specify the immediate return value for users with an account, though this is likely a minor omission.

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?

Though schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches parameter understanding: maps the 'type' enum to concrete scenarios ('bug... feature/data_gap... praise'), instructs message content ('Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt'), and gives exact claim_token invocation syntax ('pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})'). This goes well beyond the 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 opens with 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist,' a precise verb+resource statement. It clearly distinguishes this tool from the sibling list (which is mostly research/data tools) by explicitly scoping to Pipeworx feedback.

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?

Explicitly specifies use cases: '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).' It also gives an exclusion: 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection... if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead,' including a fallback for uncertainty.

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

All Feodotracker 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools occupy the same conceptual space: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all answer 'what can this server do' or 'look this up' in overlapping ways. The Polymarket suite (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) and the memory trio (remember, recall, forget) also create boundary confusion despite long descriptions.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mixed bag: some tools are imperative verbs (check_ip, forget, remember, validate_claim), some are bare nouns or adjectives (list, recent, aggressive), and many are noun compounds (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending). No consistent verb_noun or domain-prefix pattern holds across the set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a server ostensibly named Feodotracker, whose core blocklist surface is only four tools (list, recent, aggressive, check_ip). The rest is a sprawling collection of unrelated Pipeworx, Polymarket, memory, subscription, and utility features that would be better split into separate servers.

Completeness3/5

The core blocklist domain is minimally covered: you can list, filter by family/status, check an IP, and see recent additions, which covers basic read-only use. However, there are notable gaps and dead ends, such as no historical lookup beyond recent hours and no per-IP detail beyond membership, while the bundled Pipeworx/Polymarket features are thorough but make the overall surface feel scattershot.

Resources