Skip to main content
Glama

jikan

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. Added

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false, so no prior safety profile. The description adds valuable behavioral traits: rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free, doesn't count against tool-call quota, returns a claim_token when filing without an account, and how to use it later to check status. It also clarifies the review cadence ('digests daily'). No contradictions 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

While long, every sentence provides distinct operational guidance. It's front-loaded with the core purpose, then usage rules, caveats, and mechanics. No redundant sentences, though it could be slightly tighter.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The description covers purpose, when-to-use, boundaries (Pipeworx-only tools), content guidelines (don't paste user prompt), claim_token mechanics, rate limits, and cost. Given there is no output schema, it explains the key return value (claim_token) sufficiently. Slight gap: doesn't specify the exact response format when no claim_token is issued, but it's not essential.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema descriptions cover 100% of parameters with detailed explanations (e.g., claim_token says 'with no other arguments'). The description reinforces claim_token usage but doesn't add new syntax beyond schema. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema does the heavy lifting.

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 clearly establishes the tool's purpose and differentiates it from siblings like ask_pipeworx and discover_tools. The title aligns perfectly.

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?

Explicitly lists when to use: '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 explicitly excludes other MCP servers: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead.' This provides clear context and alternatives.

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

All jikan 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools serve overlapping purposes (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, bet_research, compare_entities, entity_profile, recent_changes, validate_claim) all querying Pipeworx data with similar outcomes. An agent would struggle to choose correctly without deep understanding of nuanced differences.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: snake_case (ask_pipeworx, get_anime), camelCase (generate_llms_txt, pipeworx_feedback), and compound names (polymarket_arbitrage, ai_visibility_check). No consistent pattern across the tool set.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for a single server. Many are meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions) or narrowly focused (pipeworx_trending, scan_dependency). The server tries to cover too many domains (anime, financial data, predictions, memory) in one surface.

Completeness3/5

The anime tools (search, get, top) form a reasonable read-only surface. The Pipeworx query tools are comprehensive but lack obvious data management tools (e.g., listing sources, managing credentials). Memory tools (remember/recall/forget) are isolated. Overall, gaps exist but core workflows are covered.

Resources