Skip to main content
Glama

Nist Standards

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations are minimally informative (all false), so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the two-phase workflow (filing returns a claim_token, passing it back later retrieves status), rate limiting (5 per identifier per day), and non-billing ('free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota'). A slight ambiguity remains about what happens when filing with an account, but overall behavior is well explained.

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 adds meaningful context (scope, when-to-use, workflow, rate limits, billing). It is front-loaded with the purpose and remains organized, though it could be slightly tighter without losing value.

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?

For a tool with no output schema, the description fully explains the return behavior: '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, billing, scope, and alternative handling, making it complete for the tool's complexity.

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?

Input schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all four parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds pragmatic semantic guidance beyond the schema, such as 'Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt' and a usage example for claim_token, which enhances understanding of how to fill the parameters.

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 uses specific verbs and a clear resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It also enumerates feedback types (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and explicitly scopes it to Pipeworx tools, which distinguishes it from all sibling tools that serve research or subscription functions.

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 states exactly when to use the tool: '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 an exclusion, telling users to file elsewhere if the problematic tool is from a different MCP server, and instructs 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 Nist Standards 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but several clusters overlap: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges both surface arbitrage opportunities, and validate_claim overlaps with ask_pipeworx_grounded. Descriptions mitigate some confusion, but selection errors are still likely.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are overwhelmingly lowercase snake_case and descriptive, such as nist_control_family, polymarket_fill_risk, and list_subscriptions. Minor deviations exist with single-word memory verbs like remember/recall/forget and the ask_pipeworx_* variants, but the overall pattern is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the comfortable range and includes many tools unrelated to the server's NIST Standards name, such as Polymarket betting, npm dependency scanning, AI visibility checks, and llms.txt generation. The set feels like a broad general-purpose data platform rather than a scoped NIST reference server.

Completeness3/5

For the NIST domain, the three control tools provide id lookup, family listing, and keyword search, but there is no catalog overview or family enumeration, and no comparison, revision, or export capability. The other 31 tools do not fill those gaps, so the NIST surface is functional but not fully complete for compliance workflows.

Resources