Skip to main content
Glama

Mychem

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 and thus provide no safety profile, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), cost ('Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota'), and the claim-token workflow: 'Filing without an account returns a `claim_token`; pass it back later to read whether it was fixed and what changed.' It also states the human impact: 'The team reads digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap.' No contradiction 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; it front-loads the core purpose and then systematically covers usage, exclusions, claim-token mechanics, and limitations. It reads as a single dense paragraph rather than structured bullets, which could be slightly harder for an agent to parse, but it avoids waste and is appropriately scoped for a tool with nuanced behavior.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain return behavior, and it does: 'Filing without an account returns a `claim_token`; pass it back later... to read whether it was fixed and what changed.' It also covers rate limits, quota, and when not to use it. Given the tool's complexity (4 params, nested object, enums, no required params), the description fully equips an agent to invoke it correctly and interpret results, leaving no critical gaps.

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 already has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for each parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful usage context beyond the schema: the claim_token parameter's purpose is explained as 'pass it back later... to read whether it was fixed and what changed,' and it instructs agents to 'Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt,' which clarifies how to fill context and message. This elevates it to 4, but not 5 since the schema already handles most semantics.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings like ask_pipeworx or query by narrowing scope to feedback about Pipeworx tools/packs, and enumerates the exact feedback types (bug, feature, data_gap, praise).

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?

Explicitly states when to use: '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 gives a hard exclusion and alternative: 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection... file it with that server instead,' plus a disambiguation check ('Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists').

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

All Mychem 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set contains several near-duplicate entry points (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) plus a dense family of polymarket_* and chemical lookup tools whose boundaries are subtle. An agent can easily pick the wrong router variant, edge-scanning tool, or chemical search tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Snake_case is used throughout, but naming style is mixed: some tools are verb-first (query, resolve_entity, validate_claim), some are noun/domain-first (entity_profile, recent_changes, polymarket_arbitrage), and the ask_pipeworx variants use suffixes instead of a consistent verb pattern. It is readable, but there is no predictable convention beyond snake_case.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well past the comfortable range, and the count is especially hard to justify because they span unrelated domains: chemistry lookups, a Pipeworx data gateway, prediction-market analytics, memory, subscriptions, AI-visibility checks, and npm dependency scanning. Many of these have no obvious connection to the 'Mychem' name or to each other.

Completeness4/5

Within each contained workflow the surface is fairly complete: chemistry has search/fetch/metadata, Pipeworx has lookup/research/discovery/validation, subscriptions and memory both have lifecycle coverage, and the Polymarket family covers research, edge detection, persistence, and fill risk. Some minor gaps exist (no general web retrieval or execution/trading action), but agents can work around them.

Resources