Skip to main content
Glama

Nypl

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false and offer no safety hints, but the description discloses side effects and operational constraints: it returns a claim_token, is rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, is free, doesn't count against quota, and the team reads digests daily. It also describes the follow-up claim_token workflow.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose, then systematically covers usage exclusions, token workflow, rate limits, and quota impact. Every sentence contributes distinct information without redundancy, earning 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?

For a side-effecting feedback tool with no output schema and no annotation hints, the description provides complete operational context: when to use, what to include, what to avoid, rate limiting, and the claim_token lifecycle. The agent can invoke this tool correctly without additional external knowledge.

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 covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, and the description adds practical semantics for claim_token (pass back later to read fix status), message specificity, and optional context fields. While the schema already documents claim_token's read behavior, the narrative ties parameters into a workflow.

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 phrase ('Tell the Pipeworx team... is broken, missing, or needs to exist') and enumerates feedback types (bug, feature/data_gap, praise), clearly distinguishing this feedback channel 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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data...', and provides a firm exclusion for tools from other MCP servers, directing the agent to file elsewhere. Also instructs on what to include (tools/packs, not end-user prompts).

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

All Nypl 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, with clear descriptions differentiating similar ones like ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded. A few overlaps exist (multiple Polymarket analysis tools), but descriptions sufficiently resolve ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool naming is inconsistent, mixing descriptive phrases (entity_profile, polymarket_edges) with verb-object patterns (generate_llms_txt, search). No strong convention is followed, and the 'polymarket_' prefix is applied to some betting tools but not others.

Tool Count3/5

32 tools is high but not extreme. However, the scope is too broad for a single server, covering data queries, betting, memory, NYPL, and more, making the set feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

The domain is unclear due to mixed tools, but within the NYPL subset there are clear gaps (only search and item, no CRUD). For the other domains, coverage is uneven and lacks clear lifecycle completeness.

Resources