Skip to main content
Glama

Github

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?

Annotations are all false and offer no safety or behavioral context, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the claim_token workflow, rate limiting (5/day), free usage, daily digest review by the team, and the consequence of misreporting (delays). This goes well beyond the bare 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 long but every sentence contributes: purpose, when-to-use, scope exclusions, token workflow, roadmap impact, rate limit, and quota. It is logically ordered and front-loaded with the core action. No filler.

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 complexity (4 params, nested object, enum, optional params, token-based follow-up workflow) and the lack of output schema/beneficial annotations, the description covers all critical aspects: usage conditions, parameter handling, return token semantics, and operational limits. It is fully self-sufficient.

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 practical meaning by explaining the claim_token lifecycle ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})'), clarifying content constraints ('don't paste the end-user's prompt'), and providing examples of pack/tool names in context, which the schema does not.

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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by scoping it to feedback for Pipeworx-served tools and enumerating feedback types (bug, feature/data_gap, praise).

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 conditions for each feedback type and a clear when-not-to-use rule for tools from other MCP servers, directing users to file with that server instead. It also clarifies how to identify Pipeworx tools, offering a complete alternative/exclusion set.

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

All Github 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target distinct purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs. get_repo vs. validate_claim), but there is some overlap between ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, and between bet_research and polymarket_edges. Overall, an agent can generally distinguish them.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names lack a consistent pattern: some are verb_noun (search_repos, get_user), others are noun_verb (entity_profile), and many are compound descriptor phrases (polymarket_arbitrage, scan_dependency). This mixed convention makes the set feel disjointed.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is excessive for a server named 'Github', especially since many tools (e.g., ai_visibility_check, bet_research) are unrelated to GitHub functionality. The count would be appropriate for a broader 'Pipeworx' server but not for a focused GitHub server.

Completeness2/5

The GitHub-relevant tools are limited to read-only operations (get_repo, list_commits, etc.), lacking essential actions like creating/updating repos, issues, or pull requests. The inclusion of numerous non-GitHub tools does not compensate for these gaps.

Resources