Skip to main content
Glama

Guidetopharmacology

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 provide only boolean hints (all false), so the description carries the burden of behavioral context. It richly discloses rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), the claim_token workflow, daily digest reading, and the fact that it is free and doesn't count against tool-call quota. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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?

Although the description is long, every sentence earns its place: purpose, use cases, exclusion, token flow, and rate limit are all covered without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and then logically sequences caveats. The structure is appropriate for a tool with submission and follow-up mechanics.

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 a nested context object and four parameters, the description covers all essential aspects: what it does, when to use it, when not to, how the claim_token follow-up works, rate limits, and cost. No output schema exists, but the description explicitly mentions the returned claim_token. This is a complete and self-contained explanation.

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 semantic context beyond the schema by explaining the claim_token usage pattern ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})') and advising users to 'Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt.' This enriches parameter understanding beyond the raw 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 specific verb phrase: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly identifies the tool's purpose as submitting feedback about Pipeworx tools and distinguishes itself from sibling research/query tools. It also differentiates from other MCP servers by explicitly stating it is only for this Pipeworx connection.

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 by mapping feedback types (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) to concrete examples. It also provides an exclusion: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead.' This is a clear alternative path, and the claim_token flow further explains how to follow up on a submission.

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

All Guidetopharmacology 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) that differ only subtly, and a large set of prediction market tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc.) that can be easily confused. Entity tools like entity_profile, recent_changes, and compare_entities also overlap significantly. An agent would struggle to pick the right tool without careful reading.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix snake_case (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, forget) and descriptive phrases without a consistent verb_noun pattern. Some start with verbs (compare, generate, scan) while others are nouns or compound phrases (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_fill_risk). This inconsistency makes it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

With 35 tools, this MCP server is overly large and covers many diverse domains (data querying, prediction markets, pharmacology, npm scanning, brand visibility, etc.). Typically, a well-scoped server has 5-15 tools; 35 is excessive and suggests a lack of focus, making it unwieldy for an agent to manage.

Completeness2/5

Despite the large number of tools, the server has notable gaps. For example, the pharmacology section only offers search and interaction tools but no create/update/delete. The memory tools are limited to save/recall/forget. Many meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions) exist but add little substance. The server covers many domains superficially rather than providing full lifecycle coverage for any one domain.

Resources