Skip to main content
Glama

Geonet Nz

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond annotations: explains the claim_token return flow, rate limiting ('5 per identifier per day'), that it's free and doesn't count against quota, and that the team reads digests daily. All this enriches the agent's understanding of side effects and expectations. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is longer than average but every sentence carries useful information: purpose, types, exclusions, claim_token flow, and limits. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and structured logically. Slightly verbose but justified given 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?

For a tool with 4 params, a nested context object, and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: when to use, what to provide, claim_token workflow, rate limits, and what to avoid. It is complete enough for an agent to invoke correctly without further clarification.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful workflow context for claim_token (how to obtain and use it) and clarifies the type enum semantics ('bug = something broke...'). It doesn't overspecify nested context fields, but the schema already covers those, and the description's additions are valuable.

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 distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly scoping to Pipeworx tools only and clarifying it's for feedback, not for questions like ask_pipeworx.

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 for each feedback type (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and an explicit exclusion: do not use for tools from other MCP servers. Also explains the claim_token workflow for later retrieval, giving clear context and alternatives.

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

All Geonet Nz 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are deliberately near-identical variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) or have overlapping routing/query purposes (deep_research, validate_claim, discover_tools, suggest_questions). The Polymarket cluster also has five tools that all surface 'edges' or 'arbitrage' with only subtle differences. Only the three GeoNet tools and the memory trio are cleanly distinct.

Naming Consistency3/5

The dominant style is snake_case, and clusters like ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_* are internally consistent. However, verb/noun patterns vary widely across the set: some tools begin with verbs (get_quake, scan_dependency, generate_llms_txt), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, volcano_alerts, recent_changes), and some are plain nouns (polymarket_arbitrage). Readable but not a single predictable convention.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the 'heavy' threshold, and the server is named 'Geonet Nz' while only 3 of its 34 tools relate to GeoNet. The overwhelming majority are Pipeworx/data/prediction-market tools, making the server's scope massively broader than its name implies. The count itself is not unreasonable for the actual feature sprawl, but it is inappropriate for the apparent purpose.

Completeness4/5

Taking the real scope as 'general authoritative data research + memory + subscriptions + a little GeoNet', the surface is quite complete: query entry points, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, comparisons, claim validation, monitoring subscriptions, memory persistence, and feedback are all present. The GeoNet-specific subset is also adequate (get one, list recent, volcano alerts). Minor gaps exist, like no general GeoNet station/well data or subscription editing, but nothing causes dead ends.

Resources