Skip to main content
Glama

Gitignore

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With annotations all false (providing negligible information), the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure—and it excels. It reveals rate limits ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), the claim_token follow-up mechanism, cost implications ('Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota'), and the internal handling ('The team reads digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap'). It also warns against pasting end-user prompts, adding a meaningful behavioral constraint. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Though long, every sentence earns its place. The description is front-loaded with purpose, followed by usage conditions, exclusions, a clarity heuristic, formatting guidance, the token mechanism, signal impact, rate limits, and cost—each critical for correct invocation. It is well-structured, with no filler or redundancy, and the length is justified by the complexity of the tool.

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 params, nested object, no output schema), the description is remarkably complete. It covers what the tool does, when and when not to use it, what to include in the message, the claim_token return and follow-up behavior, rate limits, cost, and the distinction from other MCP servers. It even addresses the 'read the reply' use case. There are no obvious gaps that would leave an agent uncertain about selection or invocation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema, especially for claim_token: it explains the round-trip usage ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})') and the requirement to include no other arguments. It also adds typical length for message ('1-2 sentences typical') and reinforces the context object's optionality. While not every param is expanded, the schema already documents them thoroughly; the description's extra context is a clear improvement.

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 a specific verb+resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by explicitly limiting scope to 'tools served by this Pipeworx connection' and providing concrete examples (bug, feature/data_gap, praise). This gives the agent an unambiguous understanding of what the tool does and when it applies.

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 guidelines are explicit and comprehensive. The description states exactly when to use the tool ('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)'), provides a clear exclusion ('if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead'), and offers a heuristic for uncertainty ('Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists'). This is exemplary guidance.

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

All Gitignore 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

ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly described as functionally identical right now, making them near-duplicates. ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence also heavily overlap, and deep_research vs ask_pipeworx requires careful reading to know which to pick.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern (list_templates, create_*, validate_claim). However, a few bare verbs break the pattern: compose, forget, recall, and remember.

Tool Count1/5

34 tools is already heavy, but the server is named 'Gitignore' and only 3 of 34 tools relate to .gitignore templates. The other 31 tools form a completely unrelated data platform, making the count an extreme mismatch for the apparent scope.

Completeness3/5

As a data platform, the surface is broad but has notable gaps: citations return pipeworx:// URIs yet no fetch/read-by-URI tool exists, and subscriptions support subscribe/unsubscribe/list but not update. For the gitignore name, only basic template list/get/compose is present, with the rest irrelevant to the stated purpose.

Resources