Skip to main content
Glama

Gov Auctions

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?

Despite annotations providing minimal safety info (all hints false), the description adds rich behavioral context: filing without an account returns a claim_token for later status checks, the tool is rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, and it is free with no quota impact. It also discloses the human side (team reads digests daily), which helps calibrate expectations. No contradiction 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 front-loaded with purpose and use cases, and each sentence delivers distinct value. The only mildly expendable sentence is the motivational note about team digests and roadmap, which slightly stretches length without operational necessity.

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?

With no output schema, the description covers the key return behavior (claim_token on filing, status on later retrieval), parameter usage, rate limiting, and exclusions. It sufficiently equips an agent to invoke this tool correctly and interpret outcomes, especially given the 4-parameter nested schema and zero required fields.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds substantial parameter-level guidance: claim_token must be passed with no other arguments, message should describe in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs and not paste the user's prompt, and context should reference specific tool/pack/vertical. These instructions go well beyond the schema field descriptions.

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 and resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist,' using concrete categories (bug, feature, data_gap, praise). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx, which are for questions, not feedback reports.

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?

Explicit guidance is included: use for bugs, feature requests, data gaps, and praise; use only for Pipeworx-served tools and file elsewhere for third-party MCP servers. It even offers a fallback ('Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists'), making selection unambiguous.

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

All Gov Auctions 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools occupy nearly the same question-answering niche: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical by its own description), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim are easy to confuse. The polymarket suite also has overlapping edge/arbitrage/fill-risk boundaries, and discover_tools/suggest_questions both serve onboarding. The verbose descriptions help, but the set as a whole creates real misselection risk.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow clear snake_case verb_noun or domain-prefix patterns (auctions_search, polymarket_edges, subscribe/unsubscribe, remember/recall/forget). Minor inconsistencies exist: auction_lot_details is singular while the auction group is plural, and polymarket_edges versus polymarket_edge_tracker breaks the prefix pattern slightly. Overall the naming is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold and feels bloated for a server named 'Gov Auctions': only 5 tools actually concern auctions, while the rest are general Pipeworx research, prediction-market, memory, subscription, and utility tools. Even as a general data platform, the count is heavy and includes several overlapping meta-tools.

Completeness4/5

For the auction-specific surface, the set covers search, lot details, closing-soon, historical sold prices, and data coverage, which is a solid read-only lifecycle. The main gaps are non-critical: no auction-category browser, no auction-specific alert/subscription type, and no bidding workflow. The broad research/esolution tools fill in most adjacent data needs even if they dilute the server's stated focus.

Resources