Skip to main content
Glama

Metabolights

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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), the description discloses key behaviors: filing returns a claim_token for later lookup, the token allows reading resolution status, rate limit of 5 per identifier per day, free usage, and that the team reads digests daily. This adds useful context without contradicting 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is long but every sentence carries essential information: use cases, exclusions, token mechanics, rate limits, and quota. It is front-loaded with the core action and then logically expands, with no redundant or filler content.

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 has no output schema and four parameters including a nested object, the description adequately covers what the agent needs: when to call, what to provide, how the claim_token follow-up works, and what to expect in return. It is self-contained for correct invocation.

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. The description adds extra semantic value by advising not to paste the end-user's prompt, to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, and by explaining the claim_token round-trip pattern. This enriches parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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 then enumerates exact use cases (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and explicitly distinguishes itself from other MCP servers' tools, making it clear this feedback is only for Pipeworx-served 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 guidance (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and equally explicit when-not-to-use guidance ('if the tool came from a different MCP server ... file it with that server instead'). Also includes a disambiguation hint ('Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists') and a rate-limit note.

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

All Metabolights 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The vast majority of tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, etc.) are unrelated to Metabolights and overlap heavily with each other in purpose. Only two tools (get_study and search_studies) are clearly distinct and relevant to the server's stated domain.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are highly inconsistent, mixing snake_case (get_study, search_studies), camelCase (ask_pipeworx), and varied verb styles (e.g., validate_claim vs bet_research). No consistent pattern across the set.

Tool Count1/5

With 28 tools, the server is extremely overpopulated for its stated purpose (Metabolights). Only 2 tools actually pertain to metabolomics study access, while the remaining 26 are general-purpose or unrelated (e.g., bet_research, polymarket_edges), making the count highly inappropriate.

Completeness1/5

The Metabolights domain severely lacks completeness: only search_studies and get_study are provided, with no create, update, delete, or upload functionality. The server fails to cover essential operations for its supposed domain.

Resources