Skip to main content
Glama

Landprice

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?

Despite annotations being all false, the description adds rich behavioral context: rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free and not counted against tool-call quota, filing without an account returns a claim_token, and the follow-up mechanism. It also implies non-destructive nature by not stating any destructive actions. No contradiction 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?

The description is longer than average but every sentence adds necessary nuance (scope limitations, token flow, rate limits, pricing). It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and structured logically from usage to caveats. Slightly verbose but not wasteful.

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 complexity (4 params, nested object, no output schema), the description covers all essential aspects: what to report, scope, message guidance, claim_token lifecycle, rate limits, and cost. The schema handles parameter definitions, so the description fully supplements it for complete context.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the claim_token workflow (filing without account returns a token, pass it back later to read resolution) and by advising on message content ('describe in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt'). This goes beyond individual schema descriptions.

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 starts with a clear verb ('Tell the Pipeworx team') and specifies the resource (Pipeworx team) and purpose (report broken/missing/needs-to-exist items). It explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by stating it's ONLY for Pipeworx connection tools, not other MCP servers, which is unique 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use conditions: bug (wrong/stale data), feature/data_gap, praise. Also gives when-not-to-use: for tools from other MCP servers, file with that server instead. Includes a heuristic for disambiguation ('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 Landprice 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters have unclear boundaries. `ask_pipeworx_beta` is explicitly described as currently identical to `ask_pipeworx`, `discover_tools` overlaps with `suggest_questions`, and the six Polymarket tools (`bet_research`, `polymarket_edges`, `polymarket_arbitrage`, etc.) blur together for opportunity-finding. An agent would struggle to pick the right tool without reading every description carefully.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming is overwhelmingly consistent snake_case with a verb_noun or noun pattern (`ask_pipeworx`, `list_subscriptions`, `validate_claim`, `recent_changes`). The `polymarket_*` and `ask_pipeworx_*` families follow clear conventions. Minor deviations like `bet_research`, `entity_profile`, and `landprice_points` being noun-first are still readable and predictable.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is heavy for a server named 'Landprice' when exactly one tool (`landprice_points`) actually concerns land prices. The vast majority of tools constitute an unrelated general-purpose data research and prediction-market platform, making the count feel bloated and scattershot relative to the server's stated purpose.

Completeness3/5

For the actual broad scope revealed by the tools — structured data lookup, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, comparison, monitoring, and memory — the surface is reasonably complete with no obvious dead ends. However, for the 'Landprice' domain implied by the server name, coverage is nearly absent: only Japan is covered, with no other countries, address search, or property-level data.

Resources