Skip to main content
Glama

Imf Portwatch

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, destructive), so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It does so thoroughly: filing returns a `claim_token`, the token can be used later to read resolution status, it's rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free, and doesn't count against quota. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond what annotations convey.

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 earns its place: purpose, triggers, exclusions, message quality, claim_token mechanics, and rate limits. It front-loads the primary action and then flows logically through operational details without redundancy. This is dense but not verbose, and the structure supports comprehension.

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 moderate complexity, the description fills all gaps: it explains return behavior (claim_token), covers edge cases (tools from other MCP servers), provides policy details (rate limits, quota), and advises how to structure the message. It is a complete picture for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 covers all four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by explaining the `claim_token` round-trip flow ('Filing without an account returns a `claim_token`; pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})') and by instructing how to phrase the `message` ('Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs'). This extra context justifies a 4, though it doesn't independently document each parameter's syntax.

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 and resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It then distinguishes itself from sibling research/query tools by enumerating specific feedback categories (bug, feature, data_gap, praise), which makes its unique purpose unmistakable.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool: '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: 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection... file it with that server instead,' plus guidance on how to phrase feedback and what not to include.

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

All Imf Portwatch 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear distinct purposes, but the three ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) are very similar, and there is some overlap between bet_research and polymarket_edges. Overall, the majority are well-differentiated.

Naming Consistency5/5

Tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern with only minor deviations (e.g., 'chokepoints_list' vs 'chokepoint_daily_traffic'). The naming convention is predictable and clear.

Tool Count2/5

At 37 tools, the surface is overly large for a focused server. Many tools are meta-tools that could have been consolidated, and the count exceeds the recommended range (25+), making it feel heavy and unwieldy.

Completeness5/5

The server covers maritime chokepoints comprehensively (list, status, daily, compare, disruptions), and the Pipeworx-based tools provide broad coverage across financial, drug, prediction market, and general query domains. There are no obvious gaps for the stated scope.

Resources