Skip to main content
Glama

Greenhouse

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 far beyond annotations by disclosing the claim_token mechanism, rate limiting (5 per identifier per day), that it's free and doesn't count against quota, and how the team processes feedback. It also clarifies the two-step flow: file without an account to get a token, then pass that token back later to check status.

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 typical but every sentence contributes: usage conditions, exclusions, token mechanics, rate limits, and guidance on what to include. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers details logically. Slightly verbose in places (e.g., restating the exclusion), but overall tight for the amount of behavior it must convey.

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 4 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the entire lifecycle: what happens on filing (claim_token returned), how to retrieve resolution status, and what the team does with the feedback. It also covers edge cases (different server, no account, rate limit) making it self-contained for an agent.

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, but the description adds meaningful extras: it explains the claim_token usage pattern ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})'), clarifies the intent of each type value, and tells the user to 'be specific' and not paste end-user prompts. This enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema definitions.

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 tool from siblings like ask_pipeworx by emphasizing that it's for reporting issues about Pipeworx tools specifically, and even names the alternative for non-Pipeworx 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance for each feedback type (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and a clear exclusion: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server... we cannot fix it... file it with that server instead.' It also offers a fallback for uncertainty ('Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists').

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

All Greenhouse 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with detailed descriptions, but some overlap exists between research tools like ask_pipeworx, deep_research, and bet_research, which could confuse an agent. The Greenhouse-specific tools are clearly separated by the 'greenhouse_' prefix, aiding disambiguation.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names follow snake_case but vary in style: some have a prefix like 'greenhouse_' or 'pipeworx_', others do not (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs. deep_research). The verb-object pattern is inconsistent (e.g., 'generate_llms_txt' vs. 'entity_profile'), making naming less predictable.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a single server, especially one named 'Greenhouse' which implies an ATS focus. The set aggregates multiple domains (ATS, data research, memory, prediction markets) without clear scoping, overwhelming the agent and reducing coherence.

Completeness3/5

The Pipeworx/data research subset is fairly complete with lookups, comparisons, verification, and subscriptions. However, the Greenhouse ATS subset lacks create/update/delete operations, leaving notable gaps. The mixed domains make overall completeness uneven.

Resources