Skip to main content
Glama

Gdacs

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations are minimal (readOnlyHint=false, etc.) but the description compensates by disclosing rate limits ('5 per identifier per day'), the behavior of claim_token (returns a token, can be passed later to read status), and the fact that filing is free and doesn't count against quota. It also notes the team's response cadence. This adds significant behavioral context beyond the 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 informative but somewhat lengthy. It packs a lot of guidance into a few sentences, but the paragraph form and multiple clauses make it dense. It earns a 4 because every sentence adds value, but it could be better structured (e.g., bullet points).

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?

The tool has 4 parameters (all optional), a nested context object, and no output schema. The description covers all main aspects: purpose, examples of usage, limitations, rate limits, and return behavior. The lack of an output schema is mitigated by explaining claim_token's return semantics. This is complete for its complexity, though a note on the general response format (e.g., when not using claim_token) would round it out.

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?

The schema already provides 100% description coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description enhances understanding by explaining that claim_token can be used as a standalone lookup ('with no other arguments') and that message should be specific and 1-2 sentences. However, most parameter detail is already in the schema, so this is a modest increment.

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 uses a specific verb ('Tell... something is broken, missing, or needs to exist') and clearly identifies the resource (Pipeworx team) and the kinds of feedback (bug, feature, data_gap, praise). It also distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly limiting to tools served by this Pipeworx connection and contrasting with 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use scenarios (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and when-not-to-use (feedback for other MCP servers). It even provides a decision rule for uncertainty ('Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists') and instructs not to paste end-user prompts. This is exemplary guidance.

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

All Gdacs 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear, distinct purposes, but the three ask_pipeworx variants (especially ask_pipeworx_beta, identical to ask_pipeworx) and the six Polymarket tools overlap conceptually and could cause misselection. Detailed descriptions largely compensate, but the boundaries between some meta-tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs deep_research vs bet_research) require careful reading.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case, but conventions are mixed: verb-first (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, discover_tools), noun-first compounds (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage), and single-word nouns (event, events, rss). The pattern is predictable for common actions but inconsistent across the set, making it harder to guess names for related tasks.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, the count is heavy and the server named 'Gdacs' includes many unrelated tools (Polymarket, npm scanning, AI visibility), indicating scope creep. Several tools could be consolidated (e.g., the ask_pipeworx family and multiple pattern-market scanners), and the breadth dilutes the disaster-alerting focus implied by the server name.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers core workflows: data querying (ask/research/validate), entity profiling, prediction-market analysis (arbitrage/edges/fill risk), and subscription management (create/list/cancel). Minor gaps exist, such as no direct fetch tool for a specific Pipeworx pack and limited GDACS event management (only read operations), but these are workable with the provided meta-tools.

Resources