Skip to main content
Glama

Openholidays

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses rate limiting (5 per identifier per day), that it is free and quota-free, that filing without an account returns a claim_token that can be reused to check status, and that the team reads digests daily. This gives the agent a complete behavioral model beyond the raw schema.

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 packed but not bloated: it front-loads purpose and types, then exclusions, then claim-token mechanics, then rate limits, with no filler. Each sentence conveys a distinct piece of actionable guidance.

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 feedback submission tool with no return schema, the description fully covers the behavioral edge cases: account vs. no-account flow, claiming a prior report, rate limits, and scope exclusions. The agent can correctly invoke and interpret the tool on first contact.

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% with each parameter described, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the two-step claim_token workflow (file to get token, later pass it back with no other arguments) and by telling users to phrase messages in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs rather than pasting end-user prompts. This supplements rather than repeats 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?

The description opens with a clear action ('Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist') and immediately enumerates specific use cases (bug, feature/data_gap, praise). It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly scoping to Pipeworx-served tools and instructing users to file feedback for other servers elsewhere.

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 'Use when' conditions for each feedback type and a clear exclusion: tools from other MCP servers should be reported to that server. It also advises on how to identify whether a tool belongs to Pipeworx ('Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists'), covering the ambiguous case.

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

All Openholidays 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

Several tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded; multiple Polymarket tools) and many serve unrelated domains, making it hard for an agent to distinguish which tool to use for a given task, especially given the server's holiday theme.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tool names follow a lowercase_with_underscores pattern, but the prefixes vary (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, etc.) and some names are less descriptive (e.g., process, run, execute-like vague verbs are absent, but still the naming lacks a unified convention across the broad set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a server named 'Openholidays'. The vast majority of tools (e.g., SEC filings, Polymarket, npm scanning) are unrelated to holidays, making the tool count feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

For the holiday domain, the server includes necessary tools (list_countries, list_subdivisions, public_holidays, school_holidays) and is complete. However, the server's actual scope is far broader, and many unrelated tools are present, which dilutes the completeness for its stated purpose.

Resources