Skip to main content
Glama

Opencellid

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With all annotation hints false, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It transparently covers rate-limiting (5 per identifier per day), cost (free, doesn't count against quota), the claim_token flow for anonymous filing, and the consequence of misreporting (delays). No annotation contradictions.

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 front-loads purpose in the first sentence, followed by usage guidance, exclusions, and mechanics. It is somewhat long (7 sentences) but every sentence contributes useful context, so it is appropriately sized rather than wasteful.

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 lacking an output schema and safety annotations, the description covers all essential context: return behavior (claim_token), scope, rate limits, cost, and follow-up mechanism. It is fully adequate for a 4-parameter tool with no required parameters.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, with each parameter already documented. The description adds no new parameter semantics beyond the schema; it merely reiterates claim_token usage that the schema already explains. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 uses a specific verb+resource ('Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist') that immediately establishes the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly limiting scope to this Pipeworx connection and listing 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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use criteria ('Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data...') and a clear exclusion ('if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead'). It also offers a disambiguation rule for uncertain agents ('Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists'), making usage guidance exceptionally clear.

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

All Opencellid 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

Several tools are near-indistinguishable by role: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are documented as currently identical, and ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research overlap as lookup/research entry points. The six-tool Polymarket cluster and the suggest_questions/discover_tools pair add further boundary confusion despite very long descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Snake_case is used consistently, and clusters like ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_* have internal consistency. However, the global convention is mixed: verb_object names (get_cell, resolve_entity, unsubscribe) sit beside noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes, cells_in_area) and product-prefixed nouns (pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges), so tool names are not predictable from function.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is too many for a server named Opencellid, especially since only get_cell and cells_in_area actually belong to the cell-tower domain. Even as a broader Pipeworx/data bundle, the set is heavy and includes unrelated one-offs like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency.

Completeness2/5

For an OpenCellID server, the surface is just two lookups, missing coverage stats, operator-based search, and other natural cell-tower operations. If judged instead as a Pipeworx data-research suite, coverage is broad, but the lack of a coherent stated domain makes obvious gaps and dead ends harder to identify.

Resources