Skip to main content
Glama

Macro Snapshot

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false, but the description adds rich behavioral context: it states the operation returns a claim_token, can be used later to check resolution, is rate-limited to 5 per day, is free, and doesn't count against tool-call quota. It also tells the agent not to paste end-user prompts. This goes far beyond the minimal annotation info.

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 earns its place: purpose, use cases, exclusions, message constraints, token workflow, rate limits, and quota impact. It is front-loaded with the core action and proceeds logically. Slightly dense 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains what the tool returns (a claim_token) and how to use it later. It covers content guidelines (don't paste end-user prompt), scope boundaries (only Pipeworx tools), and operational limits (rate limit, quota). For a feedback tool with nested context objects, this is fully complete.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds some context (e.g., the claim_token usage pattern, the workflow of filing and returning), but it doesn't add new meaning to the individual parameter definitions beyond what the schema already states. It's adequate but not a major enhancement.

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 something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling research/query tools by framing it as feedback about Pipeworx tools themselves, not a request for information.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: '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 gives a concrete exclusion—tools from other MCP servers—and tells the agent to file those elsewhere. The claim_token workflow is explained clearly.

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

All Macro Snapshot 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
Disambiguation3/5

Several clusters overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer natural-language questions, and ai_visibility_check duplicates scan_competitor_ai_presence at a smaller scale. The detailed descriptions do separate most of these by routing, mode, or output, but the currently identical beta router and the broad ask/research family create real ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are all lowercase snake_case and there are coherent prefixes like polymarket_ and pipeworx_, but the set mixes imperative verb_noun names (list_subscriptions, validate_claim) with descriptive noun phrases (macro_snapshot, entity_profile, polymarket_edge_tracker) and bare verbs. The inconsistency is readable but not a single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold for a coherent server, and the set spans many unrelated domains: data routing, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, package scanning, and llms.txt generation. Even if each cluster has a purpose, the server is overloaded and several high-level wrappers could be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The main clusters are well covered: memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/list/recent_alerts/unsubscribe, and company research has resolve_entity, entity_profile, recent_changes, and compare_entities. Minor gaps exist (no direct trade placement, no general web search, no account/profile management), but agents can complete most workflows without dead ends.

Resources