Skip to main content
Glama

Hurricanes

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. First observed

TDQS

A5/5.0
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 and excellently discloses behavior: claim_token return for anonymous filing, later retrieval by re-invoking with the token, rate limit (5/day/identifier), free-of-charge, and no quota impact. No contradictions 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?

The description is a single dense paragraph but every sentence earns its place: purpose, use cases, exclusions, claim_token flow, rate limit, and cost. It's front-loaded with the primary action and quickly moves to actionable guidance. No filler or tautology.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains return behavior: anonymous filing returns a claim_token, later invocation with that token returns status and resolution details. It also covers rate limiting, free access, and who reads the feedback. Complete for a feedback tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema has 100% parameter descriptions already, but the tool description adds crucial semantics beyond the schema: clarifies claim_token is for reading prior feedback responses, explains the 'no other arguments' condition when using it, and gives message content guidance ('don't paste the end-user's prompt'). This adds value above the structured fields.

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?

Description states a clear verb and resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It enumerates specific use cases (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or discover_tools, none of which serve feedback.

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?

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).' Also provides a clear exclusion for tools from other MCP servers and a disambiguation rule ('Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists').

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

All Hurricanes 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with clear descriptions, but ask_pipeworx_beta is nearly identical to ask_pipeworx, and the presence of several meta-tools may cause slight confusion. Overall, an agent can differentiate most tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use lowercase_with_underscores and follow an action_domain pattern (e.g., validate_claim, scan_competitor_ai_presence). There is a mix of verb-noun and noun-verb, but the pattern is predictable and readable.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is on the higher end, but given the broad scope (finance, drugs, prediction markets, data retrieval, memory), the count is reasonable. However, the server name 'Hurricanes' suggests a narrower focus, making the count feel excessive for that domain.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of data domains and includes meta-tools for discovery, grounded answers, and subscriptions. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no non-US company data), but overall the surface is comprehensive for a general-purpose data server.

Resources