Skip to main content
Glama

Npi Registry

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 readOnlyHint=false, but the description adds substantial behavior: the claim_token flow for later retrieval, a 5-per-day rate limit, 'free and doesn't count against quota', daily reading by the team, and the roadmap impact. This far exceeds what structured annotations provide and reveals the tool's full life cycle.

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?

The description is ~150 words but every sentence earns its place: types, exclusions, claim_token usage, rate limit, and content guidance. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and uses punctuation and examples effectively for readability. No fluff or repetition.

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 4 optional params, 0 required, and no output schema, this description covers all nuances: feedback categories, optional context structure, claim_token retrieval, rate limiting, and the critical scope boundary (only Pipeworx connection tools). An agent will know exactly when and how to invoke it, and what to expect in return.

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 semantic baseline is met. The description adds critical extra guidance for claim_token (pass it back later with no other arguments to read status), which is a behavioral constraint not in the schema. Slight benefit over baseline, though the schema already documents each parameter well.

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 specific verb-resource pair ('Tell the Pipeworx team') and enumerates concrete feedback types (broken, missing, needs to exist). It distinguishes Pipeworx feedback from sibling tools by explicitly limiting it to tools served by this connection, 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?

It gives explicit when-to-use scenarios (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and an explicit exclusion (other MCP servers' tools), plus guidance on what to write (describe in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, don't paste the end-user prompt). This is exemplary usage direction with clear alternatives and boundaries.

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

All Npi Registry 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

The tools are generally distinct, with clear purposes for NPI registry operations, but some overlap exists between ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, which all route to the same underlying data but with different response modes. Additionally, bet_research and polymarket_edges both offer analysis of prediction markets, causing potential confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

The naming is mixed: some tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., search, remember, forget), while others use descriptive but non-pattern names like ai_visibility_check or ask_pipeworx_grounded. There is also a mix of snake_case and camelCase (e.g., generate_llms_txt vs. ai_visibility_check).

Tool Count4/5

With 33 tools, the count is slightly high but still reasonable given the broad scope of the server, which covers NPI registry, company profiles, prediction markets, AI visibility, and more. Each tool serves a distinct purpose, though a few could potentially be consolidated.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface covers the NPI registry core (search, get by NPI) but lacks obvious CRUD operations like create, update, or delete for providers. For other domains like company profiles, it has good coverage, but the NPI-specific functionality feels incomplete without lifecycle management.

Resources