Skip to main content
Glama

Nyc Parks

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false and provide no behavioral hints, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses rate limiting (5 per day), free/quota-free nature, the claim_token auth workflow, daily digest reading, and roadmap impact. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 each clause earns its place: purpose, usage conditions, exclusions, claim_token workflow, rate limits, and scope. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and logically organized. Some redundancy exists (e.g., 'Free; doesn't count against quota' could merge), but overall it is efficient.

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 4-parameter nested tool with no output schema, the description fully covers behavior: when to use, message content guidance, claim_token return/read flow, rate limits, and scope boundaries. The only meaningful return value (claim_token) is described, along with how to use it, making the tool's contract complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by specifying that the message should describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs ('don't paste the end-user's prompt') and by clarifying that filing without an account returns a claim_token that can be passed back later—details not explicit in 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?

Description opens with 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist', giving a specific verb and resource. It distinguishes this from sibling feedback-type tools by scoping it only to Pipeworx's own connection and naming concrete use cases (bug, feature/data_gap, praise).

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?

Explicit 'Use when' conditions are listed (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and an explicit exclusion is stated: 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection... file it with that server instead.' It also provides a disambiguation rule ('Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists.') making when-to-use vs alternatives completely clear.

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

All Nyc Parks 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded trio are functionally near-identical to an agent (the beta is explicitly described as currently identical to stable), and the five polymarket_* tools (edges, arbitrage, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) have heavily overlapping concerns around finding and validating prediction-market edges. The descriptions are detailed, but the boundaries require careful reading to pick correctly.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools use snake_case and mostly follow a verb-first or noun-phrase convention, with recognizable family prefixes (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*) that aid navigation. Minor deviations exist — bare nouns like categories and events, and the inconsistent verb placement in bet_research vs. validate_claim — but the overall pattern is predictable.

Tool Count1/5

33 tools is already heavy, but the fatal problem is that the server is named 'Nyc Parks' while ~31 of 33 tools are a generic Pipeworx data-retrieval/prediction-market toolkit. The count is egregiously mismatched to the stated purpose; only 2 tools relate to NYC Parks at all.

Completeness2/5

For the server's literal name, the surface is severely incomplete: categories and events exist, but there is no way to look up parks, facilities, permits, or event details, and no CRUD-lifecycle coverage. Viewed as a Pipeworx data toolkit the surface is quite thorough, but that is not what the server claims to be, so the stated NYC Parks domain is barely covered and creates dead ends.

Resources