Skip to main content
Glama

Mastodon

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false, leaving the description to carry the burden. It discloses rate limiting (5/day), that it's free and doesn't count against quota, the claim_token flow for checking resolution, and that the team reads digests daily. 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.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single, well-organized paragraph that front-loads the purpose, then covers usage, behavioral nuances, and constraints. Every sentence adds unique, non-redundant information. Appropriate length given the tool's complexity.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains the return behavior via claim_token and the resolution-checking flow. It also covers rate limits, quota impact, scope limitations, and guidance for crafting feedback. No gaps for the agent to operate 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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds valuable semantics beyond schema: instructs users to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs and not paste end-user prompts, and clarifies claim_token usage ('with no other arguments'). This extra context 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 something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly distinguishes the feedback tool from all sibling tools, which are research/management tools, by focusing on reporting issues about Pipeworx itself.

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 for bugs, feature requests, data gaps, or praise. It also gives a clear exclusion: do not report issues from other MCP servers, and explains how to identify Pipeworx tools. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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

All Mastodon 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between research-oriented tools like ask_pipeworx and deep_research, and between entity_profile and compare_entities. Descriptions help differentiate them, so overall an agent can tell them apart.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are inconsistent, mixing snake_case (ask_pipeworx, list_subscriptions) and camelCase (bag_research, compare_entities). There is no uniform naming pattern, which can be confusing.

Tool Count2/5

With 35 tools, the set is too large for a server named 'Mastodon'. Only a few tools are actually Mastodon-related (e.g., get_account, get_timeline), while the majority are PipeWorx tools unrelated to the core purpose.

Completeness1/5

As a Mastodon server, the toolset is severely incomplete: it lacks basic social media operations like posting statuses, following/unfollowing, and engaging with content. The name misrepresents the actual capabilities.

Resources