Skip to main content
Glama

Github_private

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. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond the annotations by explaining that filing without an account returns a claim_token, that passing it back later reads the status, and that the tool is rate-limited to 5 per day and free. It discloses behavior without contradicting the 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 front-loaded with purpose and usage. Every sentence adds useful detail (rate limits, claim_token flow, scope restrictions), so it earns its length, though some trimming of quota/free wording could tighten it.

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 nested optional parameters and no output schema, but the description covers the full workflow: when to use, how to frame feedback, the claim_token flow, and rate limits. It is behaviorally complete for an agent to invoke this 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 schema covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the claim_token round-trip pattern ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:...})') and advising users to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, which adds meaning 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,' giving a specific verb and resource. It clearly distinguishes this from siblings by framing it as feedback about Pipeworx tools only, not research or data tools.

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 explicitly says when to use it: for bugs, feature/data gaps, or praise. It also gives a clear exclusion: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead.' This is exemplary usage guidance with alternatives.

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

All Github_private 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There is significant overlap among many tools: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all serve query-answer purposes with subtle differences, and multiple polymarket tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) cover similar arbitrage/mispricing territory. Additionally, ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence clearly overlap, making it hard to pick the right one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern. Some use a gh_ prefix (gh_get_file, gh_get_repo, etc.), others are descriptive phrases (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, bet_research), and a few are plain verbs (remember, recall, forget, subscribe, unsubscribe). The mixed conventions and varied verb/noun styles make the set feel disjointed.

Tool Count3/5

At 37 tools, the count is high but still within a usable range. However, the server is named 'Github_private' yet includes only 7 GitHub-specific tools and 30+ unrelated tools (Pipeworx data, Polymarket betting, memory, etc.). This suggests the server aggregates multiple unrelated domains, making the count feel bloated for its apparent GitHub purpose.

Completeness2/5

Given the server name, the GitHub tool surface is severely incomplete: there are no create/update/delete operations for repos, no PR creation or merging, no issue comments, no branches, and no search across repos. The Pipeworx side is fairly comprehensive, but the mismatch between the server name and the actual tool set leaves major gaps for expected GitHub workflows.

Resources