Skip to main content
Glama

Gets 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.

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?

Annotations only indicate not read-only, not open-world, not idempotent, not destructive. The description adds critical behavior: rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free and not quota-counting, team reads digests, and the claim_token flow for retrieving status. No contradictions 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 dense with necessary info: use cases, exclusions, token flow, rate limits. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and structured logically. Every sentence contributes, though it could be slightly trimmed without losing value.

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 no output schema, the description covers what happens on success (claim_token returned), how to follow up, rate limits, and the scope of feedback. It fully equips an agent to decide when to call and what to include, making it highly complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining how to use claim_token ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})') and advising to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, not end-user prompts. This goes beyond schema definitions.

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 sends feedback to the Pipeworx team about bugs, features, data gaps, or praise. It uses a specific verb ('Tell') and resource ('Pipeworx team'), and it explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by limiting scope to Pipeworx connection tools only.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: '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 tells when NOT to use it (for tools from other MCP servers) and how to identify Pipeworx tools.

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

All Gets 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools overlap significantly: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded serve nearly identical purposes, and deep_research further duplicates. Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc.) also have overlapping scopes, making it hard for an agent to select the correct one without deep inspection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names use a mix of patterns: some are descriptive phrases (ai_visibility_check, generate_llms_txt), others are domain-prefixed (nz_tender_*, polymarket_*) but lack a uniform verb_noun structure. The ask_pipeworx series diverges from the rest, and verb choices are inconsistent (compare_entities vs scan_competitor_ai_presence).

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the surface is large and feels bloated. The server covers multiple distinct domains (NZ tenders, Polymarket, memory, subscriptions) that could be separate servers. Many tools are variants of the same core functionality (e.g., four ask_pipeworx variants), inflating the count without clear necessity.

Completeness3/5

For a general-purpose data query server, the tool set covers a broad range of sources (SEC, FDA, FRED, etc.) and includes CRUD for memory and subscriptions. However, obvious gaps exist: no dedicated web search tool (ask_pipeworx is for structured data), and NZ coverage is limited to tenders only. Missing update/delete for some resources (e.g., no way to modify a subscription beyond unsubscribe).

Resources