Skip to main content
Glama

Materials

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds rich behavioral context beyond annotations: explains the claim_token behavior ('Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later'), rate limits ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), and that it is free, not counting against tool-call quota. This supplements the annotations (which are all false) and does not contradict them.

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?

Although longer than two sentences, each sentence earns its place: purpose, use cases, exclusions, claim_token mechanics, rate limits, and quota. The information is front-loaded with the core purpose and organized logically, making it easy for an agent to parse.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description covers return values ('returns a claim_token', 'Returns the status and, once resolved, what actually changed'). It also covers account behavior, rate limits, and exclusions, making it complete for a feedback submission tool with 4 parameters.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds extra meaning: for claim_token, it specifies how to use it ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})') and that it should be used with no other arguments. It also clarifies message length expectations (1-2 sentences typical).

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 states a specific verb+resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It explicitly lists feedback types (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and distinguishes from siblings by clarifying it is for feedback about Pipeworx tools only, not for asking questions or getting data like the sibling ask_pipeworx or discover_tools.

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 scenarios ('Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data', 'when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog', 'when something worked surprisingly well'). It also gives clear when-not-to-use guidance: 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection... if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead.'

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

All Materials 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
Disambiguation3/5

While many tools have detailed descriptions that help differentiate them, there is significant overlap among query tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research. The prediction market tools also cluster together, making it challenging for an agent to quickly pick the right one without careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a descriptive snake_case convention (e.g., ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, compare_entities). Minor deviations exist, such as 'ai_visibility_check' and 'deep_research', but overall the naming pattern is predictable and clear.

Tool Count3/5

With 33 tools, the server is larger than typical single-domain servers. While it supports a broad data platform, this count feels somewhat bloated and could benefit from consolidation, especially among overlapping query tools.

Completeness1/5

The server is named 'Materials' but contains only two materials-specific tools (materials_search, materials_stability). The remaining 31 tools cover unrelated domains (finance, economics, prediction markets, etc.), leaving the stated domain severely incomplete.

Resources