Skip to main content
Glama

Microsoft Onenote

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?

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the claim_token return and retrieval flow, rate limit ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), quota impact ('doesn't count against your tool-call quota'), and human review cadence ('team reads digests daily'). It also warns against pasting end-user prompts, adding rich behavioral context with no contradiction to 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 dense paragraph, but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage triggers, exclusion boundaries, formatting guidance, token flow, rate limits, and quota. It front-loads the purpose in the first sentence and avoids any redundant restatement of the tool name or schema, achieving high information density without fluff.

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 having no output schema, the description covers the essential behavioral contract: how to submit, how to follow up with a claim_token, constraints (rate limit, quota), and scope boundaries. For a low-complexity feedback tool with all optional parameters, this is sufficient for an agent to use it correctly without additional documentation.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful usage context by mapping enum categories to concrete scenarios ('wrong/stale data (bug)', 'wish existed (feature/data_gap)', 'worked surprisingly well (praise)') and instructs users to 'describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs' for the message field. The claim_token round-trip is also explained beyond schema, but the nested context object is not detailed further than the schema already does.

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 broken, missing, or needs to exist,' clearly stating the tool's function with a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from siblings by explicitly scoping to 'tools served by this Pipeworx connection' and contrasting with other MCP servers, leaving no ambiguity about what the tool does.

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 gives explicit when-to-use criteria: '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 provides a clear when-not-to-use case: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server ... file it with that server instead,' plus guidance on how to identify Pipeworx tools.

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

All Microsoft Onenote 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

Several tools are genuinely easy to confuse: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly described as currently identical, and the five polymarket_* tools overlap significantly in purpose. There are also wrapper-like pairs such as ai_visibility_check vs. scan_competitor_ai_presence and entity_profile vs. recent_changes vs. compare_entities that require reading long descriptions to disambiguate.

Naming Consistency3/5

The names are mostly lowercase snake_case and readable, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern: entity_profile and recent_changes are noun phrases, pipeworx_trending and pipeworx_feedback use a prefix, ask_pipeworx_beta is a single-family variant, and scan_competitor_ai_presence uses a different structure from ai_visibility_check. The naming is not chaotic, but it is a mix of conventions.

Tool Count1/5

A server labeled Microsoft Onenote exposes 31 tools, none of which actually relate to OneNote note-taking, notebooks, or pages. Even as a general research/prediction-market server, 31 tools is far above the coherent range, and for the stated product purpose this count is wildly inappropriate.

Completeness1/5

For the server's declared OneNote domain, there is zero coverage: no tools for creating, reading, updating, or deleting notes, pages, sections, or notebooks. The actual tool surface is centered on Pipeworx data lookups, Polymarket arbitrage, and memory helpers, which leaves the apparent note-taking domain completely unrepresented.

Resources