Skip to main content
Glama

Geoboundaries

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With all annotations set to false, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure, and it succeeds. It discloses the claim_token flow (filing without an account returns a token that can be used later to check resolution), rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), quota impact ('doesn't count against your tool-call quota'), and operational details (team reads digests daily). It also advises not to paste end-user prompts, adding practical behavioral context. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 longer than typical, but every sentence delivers useful information: purpose, use cases, exclusions, token flow, rate limits, and quota. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and uses clear, direct language. Some redundancy exists (e.g., the 'only Pipeworx connection' point is restated), but the structure is logical and not bloated. It earns a 4 rather than 5 due to its density.

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?

Given the tool's moderate complexity (4 optional params, nested object, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the tool's domain, when to use/discard it, the full claim_token lifecycle, rate limits, and input formatting guidance. The absence of an output schema is mitigated by explaining the return behavior ('returns a claim_token') in the description. This is fully sufficient for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 input schema provides 100% description coverage for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value by explaining the claim_token usage workflow in context ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:...})'), which goes beyond the schema's static parameter description. It also ties the context object to specific Pipeworx tools/packs, but the schema already handles that well. This extra operational context justifies a 4.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb and resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It explicitly distinguishes this tool from sibling ask/research tools by limiting it to feedback about Pipeworx connection tools, and it enumerates the types of feedback (bug, feature/data_gap, praise). This leaves no ambiguity about the tool's role.

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 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).' It also gives a clear exclusion rule: 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection' and instructs to report other MCP servers' tools elsewhere. This is exemplary usage guidance with alternatives and exclusions.

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

All Geoboundaries 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

Many tools have overlapping or unclear purposes, e.g., multiple entity research tools (entity_profile, recent_changes, compare_entities, validate_claim) and several betting tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_kalshi_spread). The memory tools (remember, recall, forget) and generic lookup tools (ask_pipeworx, discover_tools) further blur boundaries, making it hard for an agent to consistently select the right tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some use snake_case verbs (forget, recall, remember), others are noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes), and many have mixed conventions (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx, bet_research). There is no clear verb_noun structure, and the naming style varies widely across the set.

Tool Count3/5

At 22 tools, the count is within a reasonable range, but the server's stated purpose ('Geoboundaries') is severely mismatched with the actual tool set, which covers data retrieval, betting, memory, and more. The number is not excessive for the breadth of functionality, but it feels bloated for a server that should be focused on geographic boundaries.

Completeness1/5

The server is named 'Geoboundaries' but only provides two boundary-related tools (get_boundaries, get_geometry). The remaining 20 tools are unrelated, covering general data access, betting arbitrage, and memory operations. This leaves massive gaps for the implied domain (no tools for boundary editing, search by location, or other geographic operations) while over-supplying tools for unrelated tasks.

Resources