Skip to main content
Glama

Mime

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false, providing no safety signals, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behaviors: rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), cost ('Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota'), the claim_token flow ('Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later...'), and that 'The team reads digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap.' 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 long but every sentence earns its place—nothing is wasted. It front-loads the main purpose and then logically covers usage, scope, claim_token flow, rate limits, and cost. Slightly verbose but highly informative; a 4 for structure without being overly terse.

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 no output schema and complex behavior (nested context object, optional claim_token), the description is remarkably complete. It explains the return flow (claim_token for anonymous filing), the scope constraint, the daily digest and roadmap impact, and the exact parameter combinations. There are no significant gaps in understanding how to use this tool.

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 meaning beyond the schema by explaining the claim_token usage in detail ('Read the reply to a report you filed earlier: pass the pwfb_… token that filing returned, with no other arguments') and clarifies the type categories (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) in context. It reinforces but doesn't dramatically expand on the schema, hence a 4.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It specifies the resource (Pipeworx team), the action (send feedback), and differentiates from siblings by focusing exclusively on feedback for Pipeworx tools, not other MCP servers.

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?

Explicit usage guidance is provided: '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 clearly states when not to use it (feedback for non-Pipeworx MCP servers) and tells users to file 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 Mime 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes, such as the ask_pipeworx family (standard, beta, grounded) and the multiple Polymarket analysis tools (edges, arbitrage, fill_risk, edge_tracker, kalshi_spread, bet_research). The detailed descriptions help differentiate them, but an agent could still misselect between deep_research vs ask_pipeworx or polymarket_edges vs polymarket_arbitrage.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming patterns are mixed: many tools use verb_noun (discover_tools, validate_claim, compare_entities), but others are noun_noun (entity_profile, polymarket_edges), single verbs (remember, recall, forget), or unusual forms (extension_for, search_within, ask_pipeworx). The polymarket_ prefix and ask_pipeworx family provide some consistency, but overall the style is not uniform.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is a large number for the server's scope. While it covers many domains (data querying, entity research, Polymarket analysis, subscriptions, memory, utilities), there is redundancy: three ask_pipeworx variants and six Polymarket-specific tools inflate the count. Several tools could be merged or dropped without losing functionality, making the set feel heavier than necessary.

Completeness4/5

The toolset covers its core domains well: data querying (ask_pipeworx, deep_research), entity resolution (resolve_entity, entity_profile, compare_entities), Polymarket analysis (research, arbitrage, risk, edges, tracking, cross-venue), subscriptions (subscribe/unsubscribe/list/alerts), memory (remember/recall/forget), and utilities (MIME lookup, dependency scan). Minor gaps exist, such as no direct fetch tool for pipeworx:// citation URIs and no update operation for subscriptions, but these are not critical.

Resources