Skip to main content
Glama

Markdown

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With all annotations set to false, the description carries the full transparency burden and succeeds. It discloses rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), the claim_token return mechanism for anonymous filing, that it's free and doesn't count against quota, and scope limitations. These are concrete behavioral traits not present in the 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 typical but every sentence earns its place—purpose, usage, exclusions, token mechanics, rate limit, and quota. It is front-loaded with the core action and structured logically from high-level purpose to operational details. Slight redundancy in the motivational note about roadmap, but not enough to lose a full point.

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 no output schema and weak annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers all operational aspects: when to use, when not to use, how to supply context, what to expect without an account (claim_token), how to retrieve resolution status, rate limits, and quota impact. There are no significant gaps for an agent to safely invoke this tool correctly.

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 meaningful guidance beyond the schema: it instructs agents to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, not to paste the end-user's prompt, and shows the exact claim_token invocation pattern ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})'). This enriches parameter usage beyond the basic field 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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It immediately distinguishes this tool from all siblings by clearly scoping it to feedback for Pipeworx tools. It also enumerates the exact feedback types (bug, feature, data_gap, praise), leaving no ambiguity about purpose.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data... when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog...') and provides explicit exclusions with an alternative ('if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead'). It even gives a heuristic for identifying Pipeworx tools ('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 Markdown 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters are hard to distinguish: the four ask_pipeworx variants overlap heavily (beta currently behaves identically to ask_pipeworx, and grounded shares routing), and the half-dozen prediction-market tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) have fuzzy boundaries. Memory and markdown utilities are clear, but the overlapping data-query and prediction-market clusters create real misselection risk.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are almost uniformly snake_case and mostly verb-first (ask_, compare_, extract_, scan_, validate_, remember, forget), which is predictable. Minor deviations like entity_profile, recent_changes, and polymarket_edges are noun-first but still follow the same lowercase_snake pattern, so no chaotic mixing of conventions exists.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy for a server seemingly named 'Markdown', especially when the majority are actually Pipeworx data-research and prediction-market tools. Several tools duplicate or wrap each other (ask_pipeworx_beta, scan_competitor_ai_presence, bet_research et al.), so the count feels bloated; it is not as extreme as 50+, but it exceeds a well-scoped set.

Completeness4/5

Within the actual dominant domain — structured data research plus prediction markets — the surface is broad: routing queries, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, resolution, claim validation, semantic search, discoverability, subscriptions/alerts, and memory are all covered. Minor gaps exist (e.g. no direct pipeworx:// citation-fetch tool, and markdown support is thin), but the core workflows have no dead ends.

Resources