Skip to main content
Glama

Monday

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. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the all-false annotations (which give no safety hints), the description discloses important behavioral details: filing returns a claim_token that can be reused to read resolution status, rate-limit of 5 per identifier per day, and that it is free and does not count against tool-call quota. It also notes that the team reads digests daily and that feedback affects roadmap, setting expectations for response.

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 every sentence provides essential guidance: purpose, use cases, scope restriction, content instructions, token flow, rate limit, and cost. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and structured logically. The length is justified by the multiple caveats the user must know, though a slightly tighter edit could still be made.

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 the tool's moderate complexity (4 params, nested object, no output schema), the description covers all necessary operational aspects: what to report, what not to report, how to follow up, rate limits, and cost. It even explains what happens when filing without an account. No critical information is missing.

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, but the description adds meaningful parameter semantics beyond the schema. It explains the claim_token lifecycle (filing without an account returns it, and passing it back later reads the status), clarifies the 'type' values with practical examples, and specifies that claim_token should be used with no other arguments. This elevates it above the baseline.

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 identifies the tool as a channel to send feedback to the Pipeworx team, with specific verbs ('Tell', 'report') and a well-defined resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or discover_tools by focusing on reporting issues, missing features, or praise rather than querying information.

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 guidance (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and an explicit when-not-to-use exclusion (for tools from other MCP servers), even telling the user to file with that server instead. It also includes practical advice on how to describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools and not to paste end-user prompts.

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

All Monday 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
Disambiguation2/5

The set has several overlapping tool clusters. ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical in behavior, ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap heavily, and polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, and polymarket_fill_risk all target opportunity-finding/fill-checking on prediction markets. While individual descriptions are detailed, an agent could easily pick the wrong tool among these near-duplicates.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is inconsistent across the surface. The monday_* and polymarket_* prefixes are consistent within their subgroups, and ask_pipeworx_* forms a family, but the rest mix verb_phrase (validate_claim, compare_entities, discover_tools), noun_phrase (entity_profile, recent_changes, suggest_questions), and bare verbs (remember, forget, recall) with no unifying pattern. This makes it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

At 36 tools, the surface is overloaded. The Monday.com integration alone only needs 5 tools, and the remaining 31 are a sprawling research/meta-toolkit. Many of these could be consolidated (e.g., ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta, or the several polymarket scanners), so the count feels inflated beyond what the server's core purpose requires.

Completeness3/5

The data-research and monitoring side is thorough, covering querying, grounding, comparison, profiling, entity resolution, subscriptions, memory, and feedback. However, the Monday.com integration is incomplete: it offers create/list/get/search for items but no update or delete operations, and no board creation or modification. This leaves the Monday workflow with dead ends.

Resources