Skip to main content
Glama

Housing Intel

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses rate limits (5 per identifier per day), the claim_token flow for later retrieval, that it's free, and that the team reads digests daily (affects roadmap). This goes well beyond the minimal annotations, providing a clear picture of side effects and lifecycle behavior.

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 substantial but every sentence adds value: purpose, use cases, exclusion, formatting guidance, claim_token flow, rate limits, and cost. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and logically flows from what -> when -> how -> caveats.

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 simple feedback tool with no output schema, the description fully covers the return mechanism (claim_token), limits, scope, and likely outcomes. It leaves no significant ambiguity about what happens when feedback is filed and how to follow up.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains the claim_token behavior (pass it back with no other arguments to read resolution status), the intended content of message, and how context should be scoped to Pipeworx tools/packs.

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 enumerates the categories (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and is unambiguously distinct from sibling research/query tools like ask_pipeworx or discover_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?

Explicitly states when to use it (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and when NOT to use it, including a concrete exclusion: reports for tools from other MCP servers should be filed with that server. It also gives guidance on what to include (describe in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, don't paste the user's prompt).

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

All Housing Intel 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

Several tools intentionally overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded share the same router, with the beta variant explicitly matching stable behavior right now. entity_profille/recent_changes/compare_entities and the multiple polymarket scanning tools also cover closely related jobs, so an agent must read carefully to avoid picking the wrong variant.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools use lowercase snake_case, which is a consistent base style. However, the naming grammar is mixed: proper verb_noun tools like compare_entities and validate_claim sit beside noun-phrase/domain tools like housing_market_screen and polymarket_edges, plus the awkward compound case_shiller_metro_compare. The housing_ and polymarket_ prefixes help, but the pattern is not uniform enough for a 5.

Tool Count2/5

41 tools far exceeds the 25+ threshold and the typical well-scoped 3-15 range. Many tools pertyain to Polymarket, npm scanning, llms.txt generation, and memory, which have little to do with Housing Intel, so the count is not earned by the server's stated domain.

Completeness4/5

For the housing domain specifically, the coverage is strong: market snapshot, affordability, employment, mortgage history, rental/property analysis, metro demand, signal scanning, and Case-Shiller comparisons cover the main data needs. The generic ask_pipeworx and deep_research tools also backfill specialized queries. The weakness is scope blur, not obvious missing housing operations.

Resources