Skip to main content
Glama

Figshare

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the burden and handles it well. It discloses the claim_token flow (filing without an account returns a token; the token can later retrieve resolution status), the rate limit of 5 per identifier per day, and that it is free and does not count against quota. 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 dense but front-loaded with the core purpose and usage. Every sentence adds functional info except perhaps 'The team reads digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap,' which is motivational rather than invocational. It is slightly longer than necessary but remains well-structured and readable.

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?

With no output schema, the description compensates by explaining the claim_token return path, rate limits, and server-boundary exclusion. It does not fully specify what happens when filing with an account (e.g., whether a response/status is returned), and the 'identifier' in the rate limit is vague. Still, the coverage is strong for a feedback 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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining how to frame the message ('in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, don't paste the end-user's prompt') and by clarifying the claim_token lifecycle (filing returns it; passing it back later reads the status). This is a meaningful enhancement, though the schema already documents most parameter mechanics.

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 pair ('Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist') and clearly lists the feedback categories (bug, feature, data_gap, praise). It also distinguishes this tool from siblings by limiting it to Pipeworx-served tools, so it is unambiguous.

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 guidance: wrong/stale data (bug), missing tool (feature/data_gap), or praise. It also gives a clear when-not-to-use exclusion: if the tool came from a different MCP server, file with that server instead. This is exactly the kind of alternative-selection guidance the dimension asks for.

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

All Figshare 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

Multiple tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are documented as currently identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research route the same class of questions, and the six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research form a confusing cluster. Some clusters (Figshare fetch/search, memory, subscriptions) are distinct, but overall boundaries are frequently unclear.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are uniformly lowercase snake_case and mostly follow a predictable verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, scan_dependency). The main inconsistency is the mix of bare-noun Figshare resource names (article, articles, collection, collections) with verb-phrase tool names.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is well above the comfortable scope for a coherent server, especially one named Figshare. Most of the surface is unrelated to Figshare, bundling Pipeworx research, Polymarket analysis, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, and npm checks into a single connection.

Completeness2/5

The Figshare read-side is reasonably covered (search, article metadata, files, collections, categories, licenses), but there are no create/update/delete or account/upload operations. The broader advertised surface is a grab bag with no clear domain boundary, and several subdomains are shallow while prediction markets are over-represented.

Resources