Skip to main content
Glama

Openparliament Ca

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
Behavior4/5

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

The annotations only provide false hints (readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false) and give little safety context, so the description carries the burden. It transparently discloses rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), the claim_token mechanism for later status checks, and that it is free and doesn't count against quota. It also explains the effect on roadmap ('signal directly affects roadmap'). It doesn't deeply cover auth/account requirements but does mention filing without an account, which is adequate for a feedback tool.

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 average, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and packed with necessary details (use cases, exclusions, claim_token flow, rate limits, quota). Every sentence adds value, but it could be slightly tightened by merging the roadmap/digest sentence with the rate-limit info. Still, no filler exists, so it earns a 4.

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?

This tool has no output schema, yet the description fully explains what happens when filing: returns a claim_token, and how to later use it to read status/resolution. It covers the full workflow, exclusions, rate limits, and target audience. For a feedback tool with nested context and multiple modes (bug/feature/praise), this is exceptionally complete and leaves no critical information missing.

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 schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra guidance: the example usage `pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})` clarifies the claim_token pattern, and the instruction to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs (not the end-user's prompt) adds important parameter semantics. This enrichment justifies 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It names the specific resource (Pipeworx team) and the action (send feedback), and distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx or discover_tools by focusing on reporting issues/praise rather than querying. The title is fully expanded with concrete use cases.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: '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).' It also includes a strong exclusion: 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection — if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead.' This is a clear alternative and prevents misuse.

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

All Openparliament Ca 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set mixes two distinct domains: 8 Canadian Parliament tools and 30 Pipeworx data tools. Within each domain, tools are somewhat distinct, but the overall mix creates confusion as agents cannot tell if a tool is for parliament or general data lookup.

Naming Consistency2/5

OpenParliament tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (list_*, get_*), but Pipeworx tools use varied conventions (e.g., 'remember', 'discover_tools', 'ask_pipeworx'). The lack of a unified naming scheme across the set reduces predictability.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is excessive for a Canadian Parliament server. The core parliament tools (8) are well-scoped, but the addition of 30 unrelated Pipeworx tools makes the count bloated and inappropriate for the stated domain.

Completeness1/5

For the Canadian Parliament domain, coverage is adequate but lacks topic search and detailed legislative history. However, the server is dominated by Pipeworx tools, which are out of scope, making the overall surface severely incomplete for the implied purpose.

Resources