Skip to main content
Glama

Mydisease

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?

With no annotation hints (all false), the description carries the full burden and does so thoroughly. It discloses the claim_token return mechanism, rate limiting (5 per identifier per day), cost ('Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota'), and the team's daily review process, giving the agent a complete picture of side effects and follow-up behavior.

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 (9 sentences), but every sentence earns its place, covering purpose, usage, exclusions, message guidance, follow-up, rate limits, and cost. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and well-structured, though slightly verbose for a feedback tool.

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 4 parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and no annotation hints, the description covers everything needed: purpose, when to use, what to include, exclusions, follow-up workflow, rate limits, and impact. It even clarifies the return value (claim_token) without an output schema, making it 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 parameters are already well-documented. The description adds extra value by guiding message content ('Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt') and explaining the claim_token workflow ('Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later...'). This goes beyond the schema but is partially redundant with the schema's parameter 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 first sentence, 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist,' uses a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from siblings like ask_pipeworx. It further enumerates concrete use cases (bug, feature, data_gap, praise), making the purpose unmistakable.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data...') and provides a clear exclusion with an alternative ('if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead'). It also gives guidance on what not to do ('don't paste the end-user's prompt'), making usage context exceptionally clear.

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

All Mydisease 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

Multiple research/query entry points overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research sit on the same routing core, and validate_claim/bet_research/entity_profile all wrap lookup-and-analyze behavior. The detailed descriptions help within specialized clusters, but the central ask_pipeworx family alone creates real selection ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lower_snake_case and several families are consistent (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, remember/recall/forget), but the overall set mixes bare verbs, nouns, and verb_noun composites with no global pattern (disease, metadata, query, entity_profile, generate_llms_txt, validate_claim). It is readable but not predictable across the full 34-tool surface.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is over the 25+ threshold and the set bundles several distinct domains—disease ontology, Pipeworx data access, prediction markets, AI visibility, npm scanning, memory, and subscriptions—into one server. Each subfamily may be justified, but the combined surface is heavy and makes tool selection harder than the underlying tasks require.

Completeness4/5

The disease domain has query/disease/metadata for search-and-fetch read coverage, and the broader research side has lookup, grounded verification, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, subscriptions, and memory lifecycle tools. Minor gaps exist (no direct tool to fetch pipeworx:// citation URIs, no disease browsing/pagination), but these are workable rather than blocking.

Resources