Skip to main content
Glama

Opendosm My

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations only provide false hints, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses rate limiting (5 per identifier per day), the claim_token flow for anonymous filing, that the team reads digests daily, and that it is free and doesn't count against quota. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond what annotations could express.

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 typical but every sentence adds necessary operational detail (use cases, exclusions, claim_token, rate limits). It is front-loaded with purpose and flows logically. Slight deduction for the motivational sentence about roadmap signal, which is not essential for invocation.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description must explain return behavior. It does explain the claim_token return for anonymous filing, but doesn't fully specify the immediate response when an account is present, nor the exact structure of the resolution status read. This is a minor gap, but the overall contextual picture is strong.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics: it explains how to use claim_token to check resolution status later, instructs not to paste end-user prompts, and reinforces which type values map to which use cases. This goes beyond the schema descriptions, justifying a 4.

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+resource, 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist,' which clearly states the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx and discover_tools by framing it as a feedback channel for reporting bugs, features, data gaps, or 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 when-to-use guidance is provided for each feedback type (bug, feature/data_gap, praise), plus a clear when-not-to-us: do not report issues with non-Pipeworx MCP servers, and instead file with that server. It also tells agents how to identify Pipeworx tools ('the ones this connection lists'), which is excellent alternative selection guidance.

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

All Opendosm My 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The set includes three nearly-identical ask_pipeworx variants (base, beta, grounded) that differ only subtly, and deep_research overlaps with ask_pipeworx for multi-part queries. Several company/prediction tools also share adjacent purposes (entity_profile vs recent_changes vs compare_entities; polymarket_arbitrage vs polymarket_edges), though detailed descriptions help. Overall, an agent could mis-select between these overlapping tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a verb_noun or consistent prefix pattern (opendosm_*, polymarket_*), and the ask_pipeworx family is internally consistent. However, a few are noun phrases (entity_profile, ai_visibility_check, recent_alerts) and some verbs aren't uniform (list_datasets vs dataset_meta vs get_dataset). The mixture is readable but not fully consistent.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the typical focused server range and includes a clearly redundant experimental variant (ask_pipeworx_beta) plus many loosely-related utility functions (memory, subscriptions, dependency scanning, llms.txt generation). While the broad scope justifies some size, the count feels excessive for the 'Opendosm My' name, which suggests a narrower Malaysian-statistics focus.

Completeness4/5

For the apparent overarching goal of a multi-domain research/query platform, the surface is quite complete: data lookup, deep research, entity comparison, claim verification, prediction-market analysis, memory, and subscriptions are all covered. The Malaysian OpenDOSM component itself has list/meta/get lifecycle. Minor gaps (e.g., no direct dataset search beyond curated lists, no way to execute arbitrary Pipeworx tools directly) are workable.

Resources