Skip to main content
Glama

Nasa

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.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the all-false annotations, the description discloses the claim_token return behavior ('Filing without an account returns a `claim_token`'), rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), and cost semantics ('Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota'). These are behavioral traits not visible in annotations or schema.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Front-loaded with the purpose, then compactly covers exclusions, claim-token workflow, and rate limits. Every sentence carries distinct operational information with no filler, despite being a single dense paragraph.

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 still explains the key return behavior (claim_token), limitations, and scope. Combined with the rich optional schema, an agent has enough context to decide when and how to invoke this tool.

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%, giving a baseline of 3. The description adds practical context for the message field ('don't paste the end-user's prompt') and the claim_token workflow (pass it back as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"}) to check status), which the schema only partially conveys.

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,' states a specific verb and resource, clearly distinguishing it from sibling research/query tools. It also enumerates feedback categories (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and scopes it to Pipeworx connection 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?

It explicitly says 'Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug)...' and provides a hard exclusion: 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection' — with the alternative of filing with the other MCP server. This is clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All Nasa 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical), and ask_pipeworx_grounded are three variants of the same router, while bet_research, polymarket_edges, and polymarket_arbitrage all target prediction-market opportunities. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent must read extensively to avoid selecting the wrong tool within each cluster.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of conventions: get_*/search_* for NASA tools, ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_* family prefixes, plus one-off names like entity_profile, bet_research, deep_research, recent_changes, and scan_dependency. There is no consistent verb_noun or family-wide pattern, making tool selection unpredictable despite each individual name being readable.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is heavy for a server named Nasa, and only 5 of them are actually NASA-related; the rest form a sprawling general data-research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription toolkit. The count is borderline defensible for a broad data assistant, but it is clearly unjustified under the server's stated NASA identity.

Completeness3/5

As a general data-research assistant the surface is quite complete: discovery, routing, grounded verification, entity profiles, comparisons, memory, subscriptions, and feedback are all covered. As a NASA server, however, there are notable gaps—no EONET events, Earth observation, exoplanet archive, or TLE/mission-specific data—and the large non-NASA tool surface does not fill those gaps.

Resources