Skip to main content
Glama

Google_search_console

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?

Annotations only declare non-readOnly, non-openWorld, non-idempotent, non-destructive, which provide no positive behavioral clues. The description compensates richly: rate limiting ('5 per identifier per day'), free usage vs quota, the claim_token flow ('returns a claim_token; pass it back later'), and the constraint of describing issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs. This is exactly the context an agent needs beyond schema.

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 the calibration high example, but each sentence serves a distinct purpose: purpose, when-to-use, exclusion, claim-token flow, rate limit, and cost. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and well-organized, though a bit dense. It earns its length.

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 feedback tool with no output schema and sparse annotations, the description is fully self-contained. It explains what happens on filing (returns claim_token), how to later retrieve resolution status, rate limits, cost, and scope limitations. An agent has everything needed to select and 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful param semantics: it explains the claim_token is a 'pwfb_…' token and how to use it for reading status, and it gives message-content guidance ('Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt'). This exceeds schema detail, warranting above baseline.

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 clear verb+resource statement: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It further distinguishes the tool from sibling ask/discover tools by enumerating exact feedback types (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and stating it is ONLY for Pipeworx tools, not other MCP servers. This is specific and unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use triggers ('Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data', 'when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog') and a clear exclusion ('if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead'). It even offers a fallback disambiguation ('Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists'). This is exemplary usage guidance.

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

All Google_search_console 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set has several overlapping clusters: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, multiple polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) occupy the same prediction-market space, and ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence are near-duplicates. A few tools (memory triad, gsc_* calls) are crisp, but the boundaries between the meta-research tools (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, discover_tools, validate_claim) are not obvious enough to prevent misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mixed bag: some tools follow snake_case verb_noun (gsc_list_sites, resolve_entity, search_within), others are lowercased concatenations (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded), and several are bare nouns or adjectives (recent_alerts, forget, recall, process). There is no consistent verb style or separator convention across the set.

Tool Count1/5

35 tools is already heavy, but the bigger problem is that only 4 of them (gsc_list_sites, gsc_list_sitemaps, gsc_inspect_url, gsc_search_analytics) relate to the server's stated Google Search Console purpose. The remaining 31 are a sprawling Pipeworx data/prediction-market/memory toolkit, making the count wildly disproportionate to the apparent scope.

Completeness1/5

For a Google Search Console server, the surface is severely incomplete: it can list sites/sitemaps, inspect URLs, and query analytics, but lacks sitemap submission, property add/remove, URL removal/access control, and other core GSC operations. Conversely, the 31 off-domain tools make the domain itself incoherent — an agent cannot tell what this server is actually for.

Resources