Skip to main content
Glama

genderize

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. Added

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 the full burden. It discloses the claim_token workflow ('Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later...'), rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), quota behavior ('Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota'), and that the team reads digests daily. This provides rich 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The six sentences are tightly packed with purpose, use cases, exclusions, composition rules, claim_token flow, and limits. No filler. It is structured logically, front-loaded with the core action, and appropriately sized for the tool's complexity.

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 covers return behavior (claim_token), rate limits, exclusions, and composition constraints. It fully equips an agent to decide when to call, how to format the request, and what to expect back, making it complete for this tool's context.

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 extra semantics: the claim_token usage pattern ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})') and a message constraint ('don't paste the end-user's prompt') not present in the schema. This elevates it above the baseline.

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 specific verb+resource pair. It explicitly limits the tool to 'tools served by this Pipeworx connection' and distinguishes from siblings by excluding other MCP servers. Listing concrete feedback categories (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) makes the purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly states when to use: '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: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead.' This is explicit when/when-not guidance with alternatives.

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

All genderize 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 route the same style of query to the same Pipeworx catalog: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all overlap in purpose, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx. The prediction-market tools also blur together, with bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, and polymarket_fill_risk all covering overlapping analysis territory.

Naming Consistency3/5

The tools are consistently lowercase snake_case, but the naming convention is mixed: some are verb_noun (predict_gender, generate_llms_txt), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts), some are bare verbs (remember, forget), and many share domain prefixes like ask_pipeworx or polymarket_. It is readable, but there is no single predictable pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold where the surface becomes hard to navigate. More importantly, the count does not match the server's apparent genderize identity: the vast majority of tools are unrelated Pipeworx research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription utilities bolted onto a two-tool gender-prediction core.

Completeness3/5

As a broad research assistant, the set is substantial: it covers question routing, grounded verification, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, change feeds, memory, and subscriptions. However, the actual genderize domain is thin—just two prediction tools with no batch, supported-country, or accuracy endpoints—and several unrelated capabilities feel bolted on, making coverage uneven.

Resources