Skip to main content
Glama

Hash

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?

Beyond the annotations (all false), the description discloses rate limits (5 per identifier per day), a no-quota policy, claim_token handling for follow-up, and an internal review process (daily digests). This adds meaningful behavioral context that the annotations do not provide, and it contradicts nothing.

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?

Despite being long, every sentence provides essential operational guidance: purpose, use cases, exclusion boundaries, token handling, and rate limits. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose, then branches into conditional details, making it both complete and navigable.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (multiple feedback types, claim_token semantics, cross-server exclusions, rate limiting) and the absence of an output schema, the description fully compensates. It explains return values, lifecycle of a report, quota behavior, and what not to include, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to guess.

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?

The schema already covers all parameters (100%), but the description enriches semantics by explaining the claim_token round-trip ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"}) to read whether it was fixed') and instructing on message content ('don't paste the end-user's prompt'). These details go beyond schema descriptions, so a score above baseline is warranted.

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 and resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly enumerates the feedback types (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and distinguishes these from filing with different MCP servers, making the tool's purpose unambiguous and differentiated from siblings.

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 (bug, feature/data_gap, praise), explicit when-not-to-use (tools from other MCP servers), and a fallback heuristic ('Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists'). This gives the agent clear decision criteria and alternatives.

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

All Hash 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes despite overlapping domains like prediction markets, but detailed descriptions help agents differentiate. A few tools like `ask_pipeworx` and `deep_research` could be confused without careful reading.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming patterns are inconsistent, mixing `ask_`, `polymarket_`, `scan_`, `recent_`, `entity_`, etc., with no unifying convention. The server name 'Hash' mismatches the tool set entirely.

Tool Count3/5

32 tools is on the high side for a focused server, but the set covers many areas. The count is slightly above the typical 3-15 range, yet each tool has a clear purpose.

Completeness2/5

The tool set feels like a collection of unrelated utilities rather than a coherent domain. Core hashing functionality is minimal, while other areas like prediction markets are over-represented with gaps elsewhere.

Resources