Skip to main content
Glama

Hubspot

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?

With all annotations false, the description bears full responsibility for disclosing behavior. It reveals the two-step claim_token flow, rate-limiting (5 per identifier per day), the team's daily digest review and roadmap impact, and the instruction not to paste end-user prompts. It even states 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?

Though longer than average, every sentence earns its place. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then sequentially covers when-to-use, exclusions, operational semantics (claim_token, rate limit, quota), and user guidance. There is no fluff or repetition; the structure makes the tool's requirements and constraints immediately scannable.

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?

This is a moderately complex tool with 4 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema. The description covers the full behavioral contract: when to use, what to report, how the claim_token works, constraints (rate limit, quota), and scope boundaries. It even addresses the 'not sure' case with a heuristic (tool names listed by this connection). Complete enough to invoke correctly without further clarification.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by showing a concrete claim_token usage example ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})'), clarifying that claim_token should be used 'with no other arguments,' and reinforcing message specificity (which tool, what error). These additions go beyond schema text without being redundant.

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, specific verb-plus-resource statement: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It explicitly lists the feedback categories (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or discover_tools by framing it as a reporting channel for Pipeworx tool issues.

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: '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).' It also provides a clear exclusion and alternative: if the tool came from a different MCP server, file it with that server instead, and clarifies how to identify Pipeworx tools. This is exemplary usage direction.

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

All Hubspot 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are near-duplicates or overlapping entry points: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve overlapping query/discovery purposes. The polymarket tools and HubSpot tools are more distinct, but the set as a whole has fuzzy boundaries between many members.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent across the set: HubSpot tools use an hs_ prefix, Pipeworx tools mostly use bare verbs (ask_pipeworx, recall, forget), and other tools mix styles (ai_visibility_check, generate_llms_txt, polymarket_edges). The hs_* subset is consistent, but overall there is no single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is too many for the apparent scope, especially since the server is named 'Hubspot' but only 6 of the tools are HubSpot-specific. A large portion of the catalog covers unrelated Pipeworx data access, prediction markets, memory, and npm scanning, making the set feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

The HubSpot portion of the tool set is read-only: it can get, list, and search companies/contacts/deals, but has no create, update, or delete operations, leaving obvious lifecycle gaps. If the intended domain is actually Pipeworx/data research, the HubSpot tools seem like an unrelated afterthought, so the surface is incomplete for either interpretation.

Resources