Skip to main content
Glama

Isbn

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 hints, so the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses rate limits ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), cost behavior ('Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota'), the claim_token workflow for follow-up, and team response cadence ('digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap'). No annotation contradiction exists.

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 a single, dense paragraph that front-loads the core purpose and then systematically covers usage triggers, exclusions, behavioral details, and constraints. Every sentence delivers distinct information—no fluff or repetition—and the structure flows logically from what→when→how→caveats.

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's moderate complexity (4 parameters, one nested object, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: purpose, use cases, alternatives, exclusions, return behavior via claim_token, rate limits, and quota impact. It is fully self-contained and leaves no major contextual gap for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke it.

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 semantics beyond the schema, notably the claim_token usage pattern ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})') and the instruction to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, which contextualizes the 'context' object. It doesn't fully detail every parameter but adds enough value to warrant a 4.

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, specific verb-resource pairing: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It enumerates concrete categories (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and explicitly scopes the tool to Pipeworx-served tools, distinguishing it from any similar-sounding feedback mechanisms among the listed siblings.

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 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...') and provides a clear exclusion: reports about tools from other MCP servers should be filed with that server instead. It also gives guidance on how to describe issues (in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, not end-user prompts).

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

All Isbn 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (entity_profile, compare_entities, ask_pipeworx, etc.). However, ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are very similar, and suggest_questions/discover_tools overlap slightly. Overall, tools are well-disambiguated with only minor ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some start with a verb (ask_, validate_), others with a noun (entity_, bet_). Several are noun_noun (entity_profile), and some are single verbs (remember). No consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is excessive for a server named 'Isbn' that only has 2 ISBN-specific tools. The majority are from Pipeworx, creating scope mismatch. Multiple redundant tools (three ask_pipeworx variants, several polymarket tools) inflate the count unnecessarily.

Completeness2/5

For a server named 'Isbn', completeness is very low—only conversion and validation are provided; no metadata lookup or other ISBN-related features exist. The Pipeworx tools themselves are comprehensive, but they do not align with the server's implied domain.

Resources