Skip to main content
Glama

Kegg

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?

Even though annotations are all false (no read-only/destructive hints), the description discloses the claim_token mechanism, rate limits ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), quota impact, and that 'The team reads digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap.' This goes far beyond the structured 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 longer than one sentence but every clause adds critical behavioral or usage detail—no filler. It is front-loaded with purpose and then flows into usage rules, token mechanics, and limits, making it dense but well-organized.

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 lack of an output schema, the description explains the return behavior (claim_token), how to retrieve resolution status, and the human workflow behind the feedback. It covers caveats about cross-server feedback and message content, making it fully self-contained for an agent to use.

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 practical guidance on claim_token usage ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})') and instructs users to 'Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs,' adding value beyond the schema's field definitions.

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 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist,' which precisely states the tool's action and target. It clearly differentiates from all sibling research/subscription tools by being the only feedback channel.

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 defines 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 an exclusion rule: not for other MCP servers, and directs users to file with that server instead.

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

All Kegg 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have clearly described distinct purposes, but several overlap: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all occupy neighboring query/discovery territory. The Polymarket and memory tool families, by contrast, are well differentiated.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and readable, but the set mixes verb-first names (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity, validate_claim) with noun-phrase names (entity_profile, bet_research, recent_alerts, polymarket_arbitrage) and brand prefixes (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern across the toolkit.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well beyond the heavy range, and the count is especially inappropriate because the server is named Kegg but only find, get_entry, and list_database relate to KEGG bioinformatics. The remaining 31 tools span unrelated domains (generic data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, npm scanning), making the scope feel like several products merged into one.

Completeness2/5

As a KEGG server, the surface is severely thin: three read-only tools with no pathway mapping, sequence search, or cross-reference utilities. The Pipeworx research and Polymarket betting subsystems are more complete, but their presence under a Kegg server makes the overall surface incoherent rather than complete.

Resources