Skip to main content
Glama

Opentreeoflife

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With all annotation hints false and uninformative, the description carries the full weight. It discloses rate limits (5 per identifier per day), cost (free, no quota), token-return behavior (claim_token for later status checks), and the team's daily digest workflow. It also warns that misdirected reports delay resolution—useful behavioral context.

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 long but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage, exclusions, content rules, token flow, rate limit, cost. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and progressively adds concrete operational details. No fluff or repetition.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description must explain return values, and it does: 'Filing without an account returns a claim_token' and how to use it to read resolution status. It also covers scope, rate limits, cost, and content guidelines. For a feedback tool with conditional claim-token behavior, this is complete.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds practical meaning beyond the schema: it explains how to use `claim_token` ('pass it back later'), emphasizes message content should reference Pipeworx tools/packs, and clarifies the `type` enum categories. This raises it above baseline.

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 and resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly distinguishes the tool from all siblings (none of which are feedback tools) and enumerates the feedback categories (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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and a clear exclusion: 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection' with explicit instruction to file elsewhere for other servers. It also provides content guidance (describe in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, don't paste user prompts) and token-claim usage.

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

All Opentreeoflife 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have clear distinct purposes, but ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research have overlapping functionality with subtle differences, causing potential confusion. Overall, most tools are distinguishable.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names use a mix of patterns: some follow verb_noun (validate_claim, resolve_entity), others are compound nouns (polymarket_arbitrage, ai_visibility_check), and some are plain verbs (recall, forget). Inconsistent style and length reduce predictability.

Tool Count3/5

At 34 tools, the count is on the high side for a typical server, but it might be manageable if the scope were broad. However, the server name 'Opentreeoflife' suggests a narrow biological focus, making the large count feel mismatched and excessive.

Completeness1/5

For a server named after a tree-of-life database, only three tools (match_names, common_ancestor, taxon_info) are relevant. Missing fundamental operations like listing children, searching taxa, or retrieving phylogenetic trees leaves the domain severely incomplete.

Resources