Skip to main content
Glama

Lichess

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations offer no safety hints (all false), so description carries full burden. It discloses rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), the no-account claim_token workflow and later status retrieval, and that the team reads digests daily. It also warns against pasting end-user prompts, adding behavioral context.

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 minimal, but every sentence earns its place—from use cases to exclusions to token workflow and limits. It is front-loaded with the core action. Slightly verbose due to the token usage details, but well-structured and scannable.

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?

For a feedback tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description explains the main return behavior (claim_token when no account) but does not explicitly state what the response looks like for authenticated submissions. The instructions for context (pack/tool/vertical) and message scope are clear, making the tool fully invokable.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful nuance by explaining the claim_token round-trip pattern ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})') and constrains message content to Pipeworx tools/packs. This elevation justifies 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 specific verb+resource ('Tell the Pipeworx team') and enumerates the exact scenarios: 'broken, missing, or needs to exist'. It clearly distinguishes itself from siblings by restricting scope to tools served by this Pipeworx connection and explicitly contrasts with other MCP servers' connectors.

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 list: 'bug', 'feature/data_gap', 'praise'. Gives a direct when-not-to-use and alternative: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead.' Also disambiguates uncertainty: 'Not sure? 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 Lichess 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The server mixes chess tools with numerous data query tools from Pipeworx, causing significant overlap. Multiple ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and deep_research have similar purposes, making it difficult for an agent to choose correctly. Chess tools are distinct but compete with many unrelated tools.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern: chess tools use mostly underscores (top_players, opening_explorer), Pipeworx tools use mixed styles (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, entity_profile), and memory/subscription tools use simple verbs (remember, subscribe). The naming is inconsistent across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 41 tools, the count is high and unfocused. A chess server would typically have 10-15 tools; the remaining 31 tools from Pipeworx are unrelated and overwhelm the set. The server tries to cover too many domains, making it bloated for its primary purpose.

Completeness2/5

The chess-specific tools (10) cover basic queries but lack deeper chess analysis (e.g., puzzles, board evaluation). The extensive Pipeworx tools are out of scope for a Lichess server, resulting in an incomplete surface for the expected domain and an excessive surface for unrelated data lookups.

Resources