Skip to main content
Glama

Geoapify

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the minimal annotations, the description discloses the claim_token workflow, daily rate limit of 5 per identifier, and confirms the tool is free and doesn't count against quota. It also explains the intended usage pattern for reading resolution status via claim_token, adding substantial context beyond the structured 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 dense but every sentence conveys necessary information: purpose, usage triggers, out-of-scope guidance, token workflow, rate limit, and fairness. It's structured logically and no sentence is wasted.

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?

The tool has multiple nuanced behaviors—optional params, free status, rate limit, claim_token flow—and the description covers all of them. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by explaining what the claim_token returns and how to use it in a follow-up call.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds behavioral guidance: instructs users to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs rather than pasting end-user prompts, and explains the claim_token round-trip pattern, adding value beyond the schema.

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,' which is a specific verb+resource statement that clearly defines the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx by framing it as feedback to the team rather than a query mechanism.

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 provides explicit when-to-use triggers: '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 states an exclusion: tools from other MCP servers should be filed elsewhere, preventing misuse.

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

All Geoapify 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

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, entity_profile, compare_entities, and validate_claim, all retrieving entity data. Agents may struggle to choose correctly between them. Likewise, bet_research, polymarket_edges, and polymarket_arbitrage cover similar prediction market territory.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use underscores, but the verb/noun order varies: compare_entities (verb_noun), entity_profile (noun_noun), scan_competitor_ai_presence (verb_noun), bet_research (noun_verb). Some names are overly long (scan_competitor_ai_presence). The pattern is readable but not fully consistent.

Tool Count3/5

With 31 tools, the count is high but not extreme. However, the set covers geospatial, data retrieval, prediction markets, npm scanning, and memory/feedback - too broad for a single server. Many tools feel added without clear justification, making the set feel bloated.

Completeness2/5

The geospatial subset is incomplete (missing elevation, distance matrix, isochrones). The data access tools overlap rather than form a complete API surface (e.g., no entity update/delete). Prediction market tools are numerous but redundant. The server tries to do too much and lacks depth in any area.

Resources