Skip to main content
Glama

Monarch Initiative

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 only set all hints to false, so the description carries the burden of behavioral disclosure. It adds significant context: filing returns a claim_token, the token can be passed back to read status, rate-limited to 5/day, free and not quota-counted, and the team reads digests daily. This goes well beyond the sparse 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 typical but every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, use cases, exclusions, claim-token workflow, rate limits, and quota. It's front-loaded with the core action and structured logically, though slightly verbose at 8 sentences.

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 feedback tool with no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: how to file, when excluded, what happens after filing, and how to follow up. It explains the claim_token lifecycle and operational constraints, making it complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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?

The schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics for claim_token ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})' and 'with no other arguments') and advises message content ('don't paste the end-user's prompt'). This nudges it to 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 opens with 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist,' which clearly identifies the action and resource. It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly scoping to Pipeworx-only tools and excluding feedback for 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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use cases: '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 includes a strong when-not-to-use: if the tool came from a different MCP server, file it there, and explains 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 Monarch Initiative 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear, distinct purposes, especially within the same domain (e.g., Polymarket betting tools each serve a specific function). However, the multiple data-querying tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) could cause confusion despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Many tools follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., bet_research, compare_entities), but there are exceptions like ai_visibility_check, forget, and suggest_questions. The mix of imperative verbs and descriptive phrases creates inconsistency.

Tool Count2/5

With 35 tools, the server feels overloaded. While each domain (biomedical, financial, betting) is covered extensively, the sheer number of tools likely overwhelms agents, and many tools could be merged or split into separate servers.

Completeness4/5

The tool set is comprehensive for its declared purpose, covering biomedical queries, company data, betting analysis, memory management, and more. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to delete a bet, no write operations for biomedical data), but the breadth is impressive.

Resources