Skip to main content
Glama

Findymail

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 are all false, so the description carries full behavioral burden. It discloses rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), quota impact ('doesn't count against your tool-call quota'), and the token-based async workflow ('Filing without an account returns a claim_token... pass it back later'). No contradiction 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but every sentence earns its place: purpose is front-loaded, usage triggers are enumerated, exclusions are explicit, and workflow/limits are included. No redundant or filler content.

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?

For a feedback tool with 4 parameters, nested context, and no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent needs to know: when to use, what to include, how claim_token works, rate limits, and intended audience. The lack of a structured return value is mitigated by describing the claim_token response behavior.

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 meaning beyond schema by explaining the claim_token's usage in context ('pass the pwfb_… token that filing returned, with no other arguments'), and by advising not to paste the end-user's prompt, which clarifies the message field's intended content.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by scoping it to feedback about Pipeworx tools/packs and explicitly contrasting with tools from other MCP servers.

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 guidance: '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).' Also gives a clear exclusion—do not report issues for tools from other MCP servers—and explains the claim_token workflow for follow-ups.

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

All Findymail 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, deep_research/validate_claim/ask_pipeworx all route factual questions to the same underlying catalog, and ai_visibility_check is essentially wrapped by scan_competitor_ai_presence. The long descriptions help, but the boundaries between query, research, and verification tools are genuinely ambiguous.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names are all lowercase snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun or domain pattern: ask_pipeworx, findymail_find_email, scan_competitor_ai_presence, polymarket_kalshi_spread, and generate_llms_txt each use a different structural convention. The mix of brand prefixes, domain prefixes, and bare commands makes the naming feel ad hoc rather than systematic.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well over the 25+ threshold and reflects a server that bundles at least five distinct concerns: email lookup, structured data research, prediction-market analysis, subscriptions, and memory. Most individual tools earn their place, but the count is too high for coherent tool selection in a single MCP server.

Completeness3/5

Coverage is broad and mostly self-sufficient for the Pipeworx data ecosystem: querying, deep research, entity resolution, comparisons, verification, subscriptions, memory, and one-off utilities are all present. There are notable gaps though—there is no tool to fetch a full record from a returned pipeworx:// citation URI, and the Findymail side is limited to find/reverse with no verification or bulk capability.

Resources