Skip to main content
Glama

Insee

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.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations are all false and provide no safety signals, but the description compensates by disclosing behavioral traits: rate-limited to 5 per day, free, doesn't count against tool-call quota, team reads digests daily, and filing without an account returns a claim_token. There is 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?

The description is multi-sentence but every clause earns its place: scope restriction, use cases, claim_token workflow, rate limit, cost, and response handling. It is front-loaded with purpose and compresses complex operational details into a compact, scannable form.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description fully conveys the feedback loop: what happens after filing (claim_token, daily review, roadmap impact) and how to follow up. It also addresses the cross-server edge case, making the description complete for a tool with this level of complexity.

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 meaningful guidance for `message` (1-2 sentences typical, don't paste the end-user prompt) and `claim_token` (pass with no other arguments), but the schema already documents `type` and `context` thoroughly. This extra enrichment warrants one point above baseline.

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 verb ('Tell the Pipeworx team') and explicitly enumerates the types of feedback accepted (broken, missing, needs to exist). It clearly distinguishes this tool from all sibling research/visibility tools by positioning it as the dedicated feedback channel for Pipeworx.

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 specifies when to use the tool (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and when not to use it (if the tool is from a different MCP server, file elsewhere instead). It also explains the claim_token follow-up workflow, giving the agent clear decision paths for both filing and retrieving feedback status.

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

All Insee 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have detailed, carve-out descriptions, but ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded share the same routing core, with the beta version currently identical to the stable one. The Polymarket and company-research clusters are better differentiated, but the number of overlapping research/query entry points still creates real selection risk.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set is consistently snake_case and has coherent prefixes like ask_pipeworx_ and polymarket_, but it mixes verb_noun names (resolve_entity, scan_dependency, discover_tools) with noun-phrase names (entity_profile, bet_research, recent_changes) and one-word verbs (remember, recall, forget). The naming is readable but does not follow one predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools, the server exceeds the 25+ threshold for too many tools and feels like a broad platform dump rather than a focused toolkit. Several utility, memory, and meta-discovery tools could reasonably live in separate servers, and the Insee name makes the breadth especially unfocused.

Completeness4/5

For the broad data-research platform it actually exposes, the coverage is strong: general lookup, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, company profiles, comparisons, change feeds, subscriptions, and memory all have working lifecycles. The main gap is that some unrelated utilities like scan_dependency and generate_llms_txt feel tacked on rather than part of a missing core workflow.

Resources