Skip to main content
Glama

Hnb Hr

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?

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses rate limits ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), cost ('Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota'), the token-based follow-up mechanism, and the digest/roadmap impact. There is no contradiction with annotations (readOnlyHint=false aligns with a submission action).

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 a single coherent paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then follows with usage, exclusions, token mechanism, and operational details. Every sentence adds value; length is justified by the tool's nuanced behavior.

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, what to report, how to report, the token-based status flow, rate limits, and cost. It compensates for the lack of output schema by explaining the claim_token return behavior.

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 input schema already has 100% property coverage, so the description adds marginal value. It does enrich the 'message' parameter with content guidance (describe in terms of Pipeworx tools, don't paste user prompt) and explains the claim_token usage pattern, but most parameter semantics live in the schema.

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 clear verb+resource+scope: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It explicitly lists feedback categories (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and clearly differentiates from sibling research/query tools by being the dedicated feedback channel.

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 states explicit trigger conditions ('Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data...'), an explicit exclusion ('if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead'), and provides guidance on how to formulate feedback ('Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt'). It also notes the claim_token flow 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 Hnb Hr 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical (beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx), and deep_research and validate_claim also overlap with the ask_pipeworx family. The Polymarket tools are more distinct, but the query family creates real ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix leading verbs (ask_, compare_, resolve_, scan_) with leading nouns (entity_profile, recent_changes, hnb_currency_rate) and there are multiple subfamily prefixes (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, hnb_*). All are snake_case, but no consistent verb_noun or noun pattern is followed.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well above the 25+ threshold, and the server name ('Hnb Hr') implies a narrow Croatian banking scope while the majority of tools are for a broad data research platform. Many meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending) inflate the count beyond what the apparent purpose needs.

Completeness3/5

The HNB currency functionality is complete (single and all rates, historical and latest), and the broader data platform offers good coverage via the ask_pipeworx router, subscriptions, and memory tools. However, there are gaps (no direct HNB news or historical archive tool, patents soft-fail, and out-of-domain tools like generate_llms_txt), and the mismatch between server name and content leaves the surface feeling incomplete.

Resources