Skip to main content
Glama

Mockdata

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?

The description discloses important behavioral details beyond the sparse annotations: filing without an account returns a claim_token that can be reused to check status, rate limiting to 5 per identifier per day, and that it is free and does not count against tool-call quota. It also explains how the team processes feedback, which adds meaningful operational context.

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 well-structured with a clear logical flow: purpose, use cases, exclusions, claim_token workflow, and constraints. Every sentence adds necessary information; however, it is slightly verbose, and a more compact structure could improve skimmability while retaining the same 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?

For a tool with 4 params, nested context object, and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: it explains each parameter's spirit, the claim_token workflow, rate limits, and the distinction from other MCP servers. The return behavior (claim_token, status updates) is explained even without an output schema, making the tool fully self-contained.

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 schema already defines all parameters. The description adds valuable operational semantics for the claim_token parameter (how to pass it back and what it returns), plus context on rate limits and usage expectations, going beyond the schema's field-by-field descriptions.

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 clear verb+resource statement: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It explicitly covers bug, feature, data_gap, and praise use cases, and distinguishes itself by stating it ONLY applies to tools served by this Pipeworx connection, differentiating it from siblings like ask_pipeworx or discover_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 scenarios for each feedback type, and an explicit exclusion: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead.' It also gives a rule of thumb for identifying Pipeworx tools, making the usage guidance highly actionable.

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

All Mockdata 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap within the ask_pipeworx family (beta, grounded) and Polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, fill_risk), which could cause confusion. Detailed descriptions mitigate this, but the boundaries are not always clear.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names use snake_case but lack a consistent verb_noun pattern. Some are imperative (discover_tools), others are descriptive (ask_pipeworx, bet_research), and some are noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts). This inconsistency makes it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is on the higher side for a single server, but the broad scope (company data, prediction markets, memory, etc.) partially justifies the count. However, many tools are variations of core functionality, suggesting possible consolidation.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of data sources and tasks, including company profiles, comparisons, economic data, and prediction markets. The universal ask_pipeworx router fills most gaps, though some niche data sources might not be directly accessible.

Resources