Skip to main content
Glama

Mediastack

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?

The description discloses multiple behavioral traits beyond the annotations: rate-limit ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), cost ('Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota'), side effects ('The team reads digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap'), and the claim_token lifecycle ('Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later...'). These details are not in the annotations, fully carrying the transparency burden. There is no contradiction with 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 moderately long but every sentence earns its place: it covers purpose, usage, scope, formatting, token workflow, team process, rate limit, and cost. The first two sentences front-load the core purpose and triggers. Slight redundancy (e.g., the first sentence already says 'broke, missing, or needs to exist' and the usage list repeats similar categories) prevents a perfect score, but the structure is logical and scannable.

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 the tool's complexity (4 parameters, nested object, no output schema), the description is exceptionally complete: it explains the entire feedback loop (file via arguments, receive claim_token, later check status), clarifies what qualifies as valid feedback, distinguishes from other MCP servers, and notes operational constraints (rate limit, quota impact). The absence of an output schema is mitigated by explicitly stating the return token and its meaning.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

While the schema already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, the description enriches understanding, especially for claim_token and context: it explains the token's round-trip workflow and provides an example call. It also instructs users to 'Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt,' which adds crucial semantics to the message and context fields that the schema alone does not convey.

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 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broke, missing, or needs to exist,' explicitly naming the action (feedback) and the specific resource (Pipeworx team). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing exclusively on user feedback for the current Pipeworx connection, not on research or entity operations. The scope limitation ('ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection') further clarifies its unique niche.

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 provides explicit usage triggers: '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 clear exclusions, directing users to file with another server if the tool isn't Pipeworx-specific, and offers a fallback test ('Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists'). This is exemplary when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All Mediastack 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a detailed description clarifying its precise purpose, and even closely related tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded) are clearly differentiated by behavior and use case. No two tools appear to serve the same function.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but the structural pattern is inconsistent: many follow verb_noun (compare_entities, resolve_entity), while others are noun-based (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage) or single verbs (subscribe, remember). This mix reduces predictability.

Tool Count3/5

With 32 tools, the server is quite large for an MCP server. While many tools are justified by the broad domain coverage, the high number can overwhelm agents and increase cognitive load, making it feel somewhat bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of domains (company data, prediction markets, news, memory, subscriptions, etc.), and the generic ask_pipeworx and deep_research tools gateways to thousands of data sources, effectively filling gaps. However, some areas lack dedicated tools (e.g., weather, real estate) beyond the generic query.

Resources