Skip to main content
Glama

nvd

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. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With no useful annotations (all false), the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses rate limits ('5 per identifier per day'), the claim_token flow for anonymous submissions, that it's free and doesn't count against quota, and how the team processes feedback. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 adds crucial context—purpose, usage, exclusions, claim_token mechanics, and rate limits. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and follows a logical flow, though it could be slightly more scannable with bullet points. Still, it earns its length.

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?

Despite having 4 parameters, nested objects, and no output schema, the description covers all critical aspects: what it does, when to use it, when not to, how to use parameters (especially claim_token), behavioral limits, and even hints at the return value. The agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining the claim_token usage pattern ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})') and by clarifying how to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, which enriches the message and context parameters beyond their schema descriptions.

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 purpose: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It specifies the action (send feedback), the target (Pipeworx team), and the scope (only for Pipeworx connection tools), distinguishing it from sibling research/query 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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance with concrete categories (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and a clear exclusion: 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection' and not for other MCP servers. It also gives instructions on how to frame feedback and how to use claim_token for follow-ups.

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

All nvd 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but some overlap exists (e.g., ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research and ask_pipeworx). The Polymarket tools are numerous but clearly differentiated.

Naming Consistency3/5

Mixed naming conventions: some tools start with verbs (ask_pipeworx, search_cves), others with nouns (entity_profile, recent_changes). Prefixes (pipeworx_, polymarket_) help but the pattern is not uniform.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is excessive for a single server, covering too many domains (NVD, Pipeworx, Polymarket, SEC, memory). This reduces coherence and makes it hard for agents to navigate.

Completeness4/5

Core workflows are covered: CVE lookup, company research, prediction market analysis, and data querying. However, there are minor gaps (e.g., no tool for editing stored data, no CVE metrics beyond search).

Resources