Skip to main content
Glama

Nato

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only indicate non-read-only, non-idempotent behavior, so the description carries the transparency burden. It adds substantial behavioral details: rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free and not counting against quota, returns a claim_token when filed without an account, and signals that the team reads digests daily. This goes well beyond the annotation flags.

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 earns its place by adding a rule, constraint, or workflow step. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then layers usage scope, token mechanics, and rate limits without redundancy.

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 there is no output schema, the description adequately explains return behavior (claim_token, later status check) and covers workflow, exclusions, rate limits, and team response. It is complete for a feedback tool with this complexity.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Although the schema already describes all parameters at 100% coverage, the description enriches meaning by explaining how to use them together: it tells users to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs (not end-user prompts) and details the claim_token workflow ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})'). This adds practical guidance that the schema alone lacks.

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 clear verb+resource ('Tell the Pipeworx team') and specifies the exact purpose: reporting broken/missing/existing functionality. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx (asking questions) and discover_tools (exploring capabilities) by centering on tool feedback.

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 enumerates when to use the tool (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and provides a strong exclusion: only for tools served by this Pipeworx connection, with a clear alternative ('file it with that server instead'). It also explains the claim_token follow-up workflow, giving an actionable after-use path.

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

All Nato 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools blur together: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-variants, and the six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research heavily overlap in purpose. Descriptions are detailed and cross-reference each other, but an agent must read very long definitions to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set is consistently snake_case with helpful domain prefixes like ask_pipeworx, polymarket_*, and scan_*. Deviations such as deep_research, entity_profile, recent_alerts, and the bare verbs remember/recall/forget break a strict verb_noun pattern but remain predictable.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is heavy for one server, and several groups could plausibly be consolidated. However, the platform spans data lookup, research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and utilities, so the breadth partially justifies the count.

Completeness5/5

The surface covers lookup, grounded verification, deep research, entity comparison, claim validation, prediction-market analysis, memory CRUD, subscription lifecycle, and discovery. There are no obvious dead ends, and gaps are minor or workaroundable.

Resources