Skip to main content
Glama

Govinfo

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?

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), cost ('Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota'), the claim_token return flow ('Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later...'), and team response cadence ('team reads digests daily'). These go well beyond the minimal safety hints and set clear expectations.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then systematically covers when to use, exclusions, token flow, and operational facts. There is no redundant filler; the length is justified by the need to disambiguate from other servers and explain the claim_token workflow.

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 description is comprehensive for a feedback tool with no output schema. It covers selection criteria, exclusions, input guidelines, claim_token return behavior, rate limit, and cost. The only minor gap is a full response structure specification, but since there is no output schema and the claim_token is mentioned, this is 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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful usage context beyond parameter descriptions: it explains how to use claim_token ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})'), and instructs message content ('don't paste the end-user's prompt'). This extra guidance earns a 4, though the schema already defines the parameters clearly.

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 action: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly identifies the resource (Pipeworx team/tools) and distinguishes from sibling research/discovery tools by focusing on feedback submission. The verb 'tell' and the enumerated feedback categories make the purpose 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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance (bug, feature/data_gap, praise), a clear when-not-to-use exclusion (tools from other MCP servers), and a fallback heuristic ('Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists'). It also instructs how to frame feedback (in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, not user prompts) and how to use claim_token later, providing complete operational guidance.

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

All Govinfo 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

Many tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve lookup/discovery in similar ways, and the five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research blur together. The six genuinely GovInfo-specific tools are distinct, but an agent would struggle to pick between the numerous meta and market tools, especially when the server is supposed to be about government information.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow a readable verb_noun pattern (list_collections, search_packages, get_granule, resolve_entity), but there are deviations: domain-prefixed nouns like polymarket_arbitrage, noun-ish names like pipeworx_trending, and verb phrases like ask_pipeworx_beta or generate_llms_txt. Overall it is mixed yet still navigable, not chaotic.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is excessive for a server named Govinfo: only about six tools (list_collections, search_packages, get_package, list_granules, get_granule, search_within) actually serve that domain, while the remaining ~30 are Pipeworx meta-tools, prediction-market helpers, memory utilities, and AI-visibility checks. The count is bloated relative to the apparent scope and dilutes the server's identity.

Completeness3/5

The core GovInfo workflow is present — list collections, search packages, fetch package metadata, list and fetch granules, and semantically search within fetched text. However, there is no tool that directly downloads or returns the full text/PDF/XML content of a package or granule; agents only get links, so a full-document workflow requires an external fetch. The unrelated tools do not fill that gap and instead distract from the domain.

Resources