Skip to main content
Glama

Intact

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?

Since annotations are all false and provide no safety or behavioral hints, the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses the anonymous claim_token flow, the daily rate limit of 5 per identifier, the fact that it is free and doesn't count against quota, and that the team reads digests daily. This is far beyond what the annotations offer.

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 long but front-loaded with the core action first, then use cases, exclusions, token lifecycle, and rate limits. Every sentence earns its place; there is no fluff or repetition of schema content.

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?

This tool has no output schema and all-false annotations, so the description must cover behavior and return semantics; it fully does. It explains scope ('ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection'), the claim_token response, rate limiting, and how to describe issues, making it complete for a feedback 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema: it explains the message format ('Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt'), gives typical length ('1-2 sentences'), and shows the exact claim_token round-trip syntax. This elevates the parameter semantics 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 action and resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It explicitly enumerates feedback categories (bug, feature/data_gap, praise), clearly distinguishing this from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx and discover_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?

The description gives explicit trigger conditions: '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 strong exclusion criterion: reports about other MCP servers should be filed with that server instead, and tells users that 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 Intact 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have strong, detailed descriptions with explicit usage guidance, but a few clusters are genuinely ambiguous: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently an exact duplicate of ask_pipeworx, and the Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker) overlap heavily in purpose. The descriptions help differentiate them, but an agent could still easily select the wrong variant.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names are snake_case and most follow an imperative verb-first pattern such as resolve_entity, subscribe, or validate_claim. A few noun-style names like entity_profile, bet_research, and interaction_count deviate, but the consistent underscore style and clear prefixes like polymarket_ and pipeworx_ keep the set predictable.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 top-level tools, the surface is heavy, and several tools are near-duplicates or narrow variants of the same core capability. The broad scope explains some of the count, but the agent-facing API would be cleaner with fewer, more consolidated entry points.

Completeness5/5

The set provides strong lifecycle coverage for its main workflows: querying and grounding, deep research, entity resolution, company profiling, comparisons, Polymarket edge analysis with fill-risk checks, memory storage, and subscription management. There are no obvious dead ends that would prevent an agent from completing a typical task.

Resources