Skip to main content
Glama

Nyt

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations only provide generic false hints; the description adds substantial behavioral context: rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free/no quota, claim_token workflow, daily digest/roadmap impact, and the instruction not to paste end-user prompts. This goes well beyond the structured fields.

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 fairly long but well-structured: purpose first, then use cases, exclusions, mechanics, and constraints. Most sentences earn their place; the 'daily digests/signal' sentence is motivational rather than necessary, but overall it is clear and front-loaded.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

With no output schema, the description explains the response mechanism well: filing without an account returns a claim_token that can later be used to read resolution status. It also covers rate limiting, scope exclusions, and formatting guidance, leaving only minor ambiguity about behavior when filing with an account.

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?

The input schema already covers all four parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics: the exact claim_token format and behavior, 'with no other arguments' when checking a claim, and guidance to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs rather than pasting user prompts.

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 something is broken, missing, or needs to exist') and enumerates distinct use cases: bug, feature/data_gap, and praise. It also clearly scopes the tool to this Pipeworx connection, separating it from sibling query/information tools like ask_pipeworx.

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 guidance for each feedback category and an explicit exclusion for tools from other MCP servers, directing the agent to file those elsewhere. It also offers a disambiguation rule: 'Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists.'

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

All Nyt 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical today, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route to the same underlying sources with overlapping question-answering purposes. Entity-focused tools like entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, and resolve_entity also have fuzzy boundaries that make selection error-prone.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names mix conventions: verb_noun (list_subscriptions, search_articles, generate_llms_txt), bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), noun phrases (polymarket_arbitrage, pipeworx_trending, entity_profile), and an ask_* family with beta/grounded variants. There is no consistent verb or noun pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 35 tools, the surface is well above the 15-tool threshold for a focused server, and most tools are unrelated to the NYT domain implied by the server name. The breadth reflects a broad data-platform grab bag rather than a scoped, intentional tool set.

Completeness4/5

The query side is unusually complete: single-lookup, grounded lookup, deep research, claim validation, entity resolution, comparison, profile, change-feed, discovery, memory, and subscription lifecycle tools are all present. Minor gaps remain, such as no direct NYT article fetch by URL and no update path for stored memories, but agents can work around them.

Resources