Skip to main content
Glama

Isc Sans

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only provide boolean hints, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free and doesn't count against quota, filing without an account returns a claim_token, and the token can be passed back later to read resolution status. It also discloses the team reads digests daily and signal affects roadmap. This goes far beyond the annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but every sentence carries useful information: purpose, use cases, scope exclusions, token mechanics, rate limits, and cost. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and flows logically. It could be slightly tighter, but there is no filler.

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 4 parameters, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description supplies all necessary context: what constitutes valid feedback, how to reference the correct tool scope, what happens after filing, how to follow up via claim_token, and operational constraints. The tool is complex enough that this level of detail is warranted, and nothing critical is missing.

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% and parameter descriptions are already detailed, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra practical semantics beyond the schema: do not paste the end-user's prompt, pass the claim_token with no other arguments, and a concrete call example (pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})). This elevates it 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 and resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It then enumerates concrete use cases (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx by focusing on reporting issues rather than asking questions.

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 when-to-use guidance: report bugs, missing features, data gaps, or praise. It also gives a strong when-not-to-use exclusion: 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection' and directs users to file feedback with other MCP servers instead. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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

All Isc Sans 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

Several tools overlap in purpose (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim all handle factual queries), which could confuse an agent. However, detailed descriptions help differentiate them, so the confusion is moderate.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., resolve_entity, compare_entities). A few irregular verbs (forget, recall, remember) and diverse prefixes (pipeworx_, polymarket_) lower consistency slightly.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is high but each serves a distinct purpose within a broad domain (data querying, prediction markets, security, memory, etc.). The number feels slightly excessive for a single server, but not extreme.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers many aspects of data retrieval, prediction market analysis, and security checks. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no dedicated WHOIS or CVE lookup), but core workflows are well-supported.

Resources