Skip to main content
Glama

Ine Pt

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?

The description thoroughly discloses behavioral traits beyond the annotations, including the claim_token flow (filing without an account returns a token, which can be used later to check status), rate limits (5 per day), that it's free, and that it doesn't count against quota. Since annotations are sparse (all false), the description carries the full disclosure burden and does so well.

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?

Although the description is longer than average, every sentence earns its place, covering purpose, usage, exclusions, claim workflow, and operational limits. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured logically from when-to-use to how-to-use, with no redundancy.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema and moderate parameter complexity, the description provides comprehensive context: what the tool does, when to use it, when not to, what to include in the message, the claim_token flow for retrieving feedback status, and rate-limiting. This is sufficiently complete for an agent to invoke the tool correctly in a variety of scenarios.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the claim_token lifecycle (filing without an account yields a token, and passing it back later checks resolution), which is a nuance not fully covered by the schema's parameter description. This practical usage scenario enhances parameter understanding.

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, action-oriented purpose: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' This clearly defines the tool's resource (Pipeworx team/tools) and distinguishes it from the sibling research and query tools, which focus on data retrieval rather than feedback submission.

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 usage guidance is present: '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 an exclusion criterion, stating to file with a different server if the tool is not from this Pipeworx connection, which aids in tool selection.

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

All Ine Pt 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, with detailed descriptions. However, a few tools like 'discover_tools' and 'suggest_questions' both serve exploratory functions and could cause confusion. Similarly, 'ask_pipeworx' and 'deep_research' overlap in scope but are differentiated by depth and account requirements. Overall, an agent can typically pick the right tool, but a few pairs require careful reading.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case and are generally readable, but the convention varies: some are verb_noun (e.g., 'resolve_entity'), some are noun_noun (e.g., 'entity_profile'), and a few are just verbs (e.g., 'remember', 'forget'). The 'polymarket_' prefix helps group related tools, but the diversity in patterns slightly reduces predictability.

Tool Count4/5

With 32 tools, the set is slightly large but justified by the wide range of functionality: data querying, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and utilities. Each tool serves a distinct purpose, and the count is not excessive given the server's role as a gateway to thousands of data sources. It feels well-scoped for its domain.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers most essential operations: querying data, entity profiles, comparisons, subscriptions, memory, and onboarding. Minor gaps exist, such as the lack of a generic subscription for all data changes or a way to list all available data packs directly. However, 'discover_tools' partially addresses this. Overall, the surface is comprehensive for the server's purpose.

Resources