Skip to main content
Glama

Norges Bank

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?

The annotations are all false, providing no safety profile. The description compensates with rich detail: claim_token behavior, daily rate limit of 5, free/no quota consumption, and that the team reads digests daily. It also explains the follow-up mechanism for checking resolution status.

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 serves a purpose—purpose, usage, exclusions, claim_token flow, rate limits. It's front-loaded with the core purpose and then explains constraints. Slightly dense, but justified.

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 and all annotations false, the description carries full burden. It fully covers purpose, when/when-not to use, token handling, rate limits, and content guidance. Complete for a feedback 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%, with detailed parameter descriptions. The description adds meaningful extra: clarifies when a claim_token is issued ('Filing without an account') and warns not to paste the end-user's prompt, which helps craft valid message content. This goes slightly beyond the schema.

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 clearly states the tool's function: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' This specific verb+resource ('tell... team') distinguishes it from sibling research/query tools, which are all about fetching or analyzing data.

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 lists when to use: bug/feature/data_gap/praise, and explicitly says when NOT to use: for tools from a different MCP server, 'file it with that server instead.' This is excellent guidance with alternatives.

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

All Norges Bank 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes (e.g., entity_profile vs compare_entities), but there is some overlap between ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, as well as among polymarket tools, which could cause misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are inconsistent, mixing verb_noun (list_flows, get_series) with descriptive names (ask_pipeworx, bet_research) and varying conventions (snake_case vs no underscores).

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is on the high side but manageable for a broad platform; however, the server name 'Norges Bank' suggests a narrower scope, making the count feel bloated.

Completeness2/5

For a server named 'Norges Bank', many tools are irrelevant (polymarket, pipeworx meta-tools, memory, etc.), leaving significant gaps in core Norwegian banking data coverage.

Resources