Skip to main content
Glama

H1b

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations only provide generic false hints, so the description carries the burden—and it delivers: it discloses the claim_token return mechanism, the ability to later read resolution status, a rate limit of 5 per identifier per day, and that the tool is free and doesn't count against quota. 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Although lengthy, each sentence earns its place: core action, explicit use cases, scope exclusion, message-format guidance, token mechanism, rate limit, and cost/quota impact. The structure is front-loaded with the most important info and remains organized despite covering many operational details.

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, the description is remarkably complete: it covers when to use, when not to use, how to structure the message, what the claim_token does, post-submission behavior, rate limiting, and quota impact. There are no significant gaps given the tool's relatively simple nature.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by instructing users to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs rather than pasting the end-user prompt, and by demonstrating the claim_token round-trip usage. This extra guidance justifies a 4.

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 opening sentence—'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist'—uses a specific verb and target, precisely describing the tool's function. It clearly distinguishes this from sibling research/query tools like ask_pipeworx or deep_research, and matches the title.

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 explicitly states when to use ('Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data... feature/data_gap... praise') and when not to use ('if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead'). It also gives alternative action paths for non-Pipeworx tools and explains the claim_token workflow for later follow-up.

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

All H1b 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several overlapping clusters exist: ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research all handle research questions, polymarket_edges and polymarket_arbitrage both scan for trading opportunities, and discover_tools/suggest_questions serve similar discovery purposes. The long, use-case-specific descriptions help, but an agent could still easily pick the wrong tool among these near-duplicates.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a snake_case verb_noun or noun pattern (resolve_entity, validate_claim, list_subscriptions, h1b_salary), which is fairly consistent. However, there are deviations: bare verbs like recall/remember/forget/subscribe, noun-only phrases like entity_profile and recent_changes, and the ask_pipeworx_beta suffix variant break the pattern slightly.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well past the 25+ threshold, and the server is named 'H1b' while only 3 of the 34 tools relate to H-1B data. The rest is a sprawling mix of data research, prediction-market analytics, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility checks, and unrelated utilities like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency — a severe scope mismatch.

Completeness4/5

As a de facto Pipeworx research platform, the surface is nearly complete: open-ended queries, grounded evidence mode, deep multi-source research, entity resolution, comparison, claim validation, subscriptions, memory, and feedback. The H-1B sub-domain covers employer, salary, and top-sponsor lookups, though the mention of green cards is a small mismatch since only LCA data is provided.

Resources