Skip to main content
Glama

Nws

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?

Discloses key behaviors beyond annotations: 'Filing without an account returns a `claim_token`; pass it back later... to read whether it was fixed,' 'Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day,' and 'Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota.' The annotations (readOnlyHint: false, destructiveHint: false) are not contradicted; the description enriches them with concrete operational details.

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 lengthy but every sentence carries distinct value — scope restriction, alternative redirection, token mechanics, rate limits, and roadmap impact. There is no filler, but it is dense and could be slightly more scannable. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and usage conditions, so structure is effective despite the 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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description adequately explains return behavior (claim_token and later status). It addresses edge cases (unsure which server, other vendors), rate limiting, quota implications, and the expected content format ('Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt'). The tool's position among siblings is also clarified by scoping feedback to this connection's tools.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds meaningful usage semantics, especially around claim_token: it explains the round-trip flow and provides an example call format. It also clarifies the type parameter by tying categories to scenarios (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) beyond the schema's enum descriptions. Not every parameter is elaborated in the description, but the schema already handles those details.

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.' It enumerates the feedback types (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by restricting use to tools served by this Pipeworx connection: 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection — if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead.'

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use conditions: '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 includes clear exclusions: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server... we cannot fix it and reporting it here only delays you; file it with that server instead.' This definitively guides the agent on both usage and alternatives.

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

All Nws 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., multiple Polymarket analysis tools, several query tools (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, compare_entities, entity_profile) with unclear boundaries. Agents may struggle to choose the correct tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

While most names use snake_case, there is no consistent prefix pattern across subdomains (e.g., 'ask_', 'get_', 'polymarket_', 'pipeworx_'). Some names like 'bet_research' and 'deep_research' follow different conventions within the same domain.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for a server named 'Nws' that primarily suggests weather. The set covers many unrelated domains (prediction markets, npm scanning, memory), making the scope unfocused and overloaded.

Completeness3/5

The server has decent coverage for prediction markets and company financials, but weather tools are limited to basic forecasts/alerts, lacking radar, climate, or historical data. Other domains like npm scanning seem tacked on.

Resources