Skip to main content
Glama

Idigbio

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations only show all false hints, contributing little, so the description carries the transparency burden. It discloses the claim_token flow for follow-up, daily digest reading, the 5-per-day rate limit, and that it's free with no quota impact. These are important operational behaviors an agent needs to know before invoking.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but well-structured, with each sentence adding a distinct piece of information: purpose, triggers, exclusion, token mechanics, rate limit, and cost. It's appropriately front-loaded with the core action. While every sentence earns its place, the length is slightly higher than the minimum needed, so a 4 is appropriate.

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?

With no output schema and minimal annotation information, the description carries the full burden—and it does so thoroughly. It covers what, when, when-not, how (including the token flow), and operational constraints like rate limits and cost. An agent has all the information needed to decide whether and how to use this tool.

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 provides 100% coverage of parameter meanings, so the baseline is 3. The description adds valuable nuance: telling users to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs rather than pasting end-user prompts, and demonstrating the claim_token syntax for retrieving earlier feedback results. This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist'—a specific verb and target, immediately clarifying the tool's purpose. It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx, discover_tools, and other research-oriented tools by being the dedicated reporting channel for issues with Pipeworx 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: '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 precise exclusion: feedback about tools from other MCP servers should be filed there, not here. This is clear when/when-not guidance with named alternatives.

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

All Idigbio 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 route to the same underlying Pipeworx engine (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research), and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now. The polymarket family (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) and the entity-investigation tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, resolve_entity) also have heavily overlapping purposes that an agent could easily confuse.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case, but the set mixes verb-first names (get_specimen, search_specimens, resolve_entity, validate_claim) with noun-first names (entity_profile, recent_alerts, polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending). The polymarket_ and pipeworx_ prefixes give some internal consistency, but the overall pattern is not uniform.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy for a server named Idigbio, especially since only 3 of the 34 tools (count_by_field, get_specimen, search_specimens) actually relate to iDigBio specimen data. The remaining 31 are a sprawling Pipeworx/prediction-market/marketing/memory toolkit, making the tool count mismatched with the server's apparent identity.

Completeness3/5

The Pipeworx side is quite complete: querying, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, claim validation, subscriptions, memory, and feedback are all present. However, the iDigBio side, which the server name advertises, is only minimally covered with search/get/count and lacks any collection or media download operations, so the overall surface has notable gaps relative to the server's stated focus.

Resources