Skip to main content
Glama

Metmuseum

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses rate limiting (5 per identifier per day), the claim_token stateful behavior, that it's free and doesn't count against quota, and that the team reads digests daily. No contradictions 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is longer than average, but it is front-loaded with purpose and organized logically: purpose, when-to-use, exclusion, parameter behavior, rate limit, and quota. Every sentence provides useful information, but the density makes it slightly less concise than a two-sentence ideal.

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?

The tool has no output schema, but the description explains expected returns for both filing (claim_token) and claiming (status and changes). It covers exclusions, rate limits, quota, and naming guidance, making it complete for an agent to use effectively. The only minor gap is behavior for an empty call, but the workflow is otherwise fully specified.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds the workflow context that filing returns a claim_token and that passing claim_token alone reads the reply, which goes beyond the schema's individual parameter descriptions. It also adds message guidance (don't paste end-user prompt) that enriches parameter semantics.

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?

Description opens with 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist,' clearly stating the action and resource. It enumerates specific feedback categories (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and differentiates from sibling research/data tools by focusing on Pipeworx tool feedback.

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 a strong exclusionary rule: only for Pipeworx connection tools, not for other MCP servers. Also explains how to use the claim_token to read previous submissions, giving a complete usage workflow.

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

All Metmuseum 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The server mixes two Met-specific tools (get_artwork, search_artworks) with a large set of generic Pipeworx tools (ask_pipeworx, bet_research, etc.), making it unclear which tools actually relate to the Met museum. Agents will struggle to distinguish the domain-specific tools from the general data tools.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern: Met-specific tools use get_/search_/list_ prefixes, while Pipeworx tools use diverse patterns (ask_, bet_, compare_, discover_) and some use underscores while others lack verbs. The inconsistency increases cognitive load.

Tool Count3/5

At 29 tools, the count is high but not unreasonable for a combined server. However, only 3 tools are Met-specific, so the count feels inflated by unrelated tools. A more focused Met server would have fewer tools.

Completeness2/5

For a Met museum server, the tool surface is severely limited: only search, get by ID, and list departments. Missing operations like filtering by artist, retrieving related objects, or accessing collection highlights. The domain coverage is incomplete.

Resources