Skip to main content
Glama

Openverse

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?

The annotations are all false (not read-only, etc.), and the description compensates by disclosing rate limits (5 per day), the claim_token flow, that it's free and doesn't count against quota, and that the team reads digests daily. It also clarifies what happens without an account, which goes beyond the structured annotations.

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 front-loaded and every sentence carries necessary information. It avoids fluff, using precise terminology and concrete examples. The structure flows from purpose to usage to details, making it easy to digest.

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?

Given the lack of an output schema, the description explains the main output (claim_token) and its follow-up use. It also covers edge cases (no account, rate limit, cross-server reports) and prerequisites, making the tool safe and predictable for an agent.

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 input schema already provides 100% coverage of all four parameters with descriptions. The description adds extra semantic value by explaining the claim_token usage with a concrete example and how it differs from the initial filing, plus clarifying the 'type' enum values with examples. This goes beyond the schema, so a score above baseline is warranted.

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 ('Send') and resource ('Pipeworx Feedback') and immediately clarifies the purpose: reporting bugs, missing features, or praise. It distinguishes from sibling tools by limiting scope to Pipeworx connection tools, and explicitly enumerates what types of feedback are captured.

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?

It provides explicit use cases ('when a tool returns wrong/stale data', 'when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog') and explicit exclusions ('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 model guidance at its best, with clear alternatives.

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

All Openverse 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools occupy the same functional space: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer factual questions from Pipeworx data, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now. The prediction-market tools also heavily overlap in purpose, as do ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence. Only the Openverse media tools and memory/subscription tools are cleanly distinguishable.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case, but the naming conventions are mixed: verb_noun tools like search_images and resolve_entity coexist with bare verbs like remember, recall, forget, and subscribe, plus noun compounds like entity_profile, polymarket_edges, and bet_research. Subfamilies such as polymarket_* and the audio/image tools are internally consistent, but there is no single predictable pattern across the full set.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools exceeds the 25+ threshold and feels inflated for the surface, especially since several could be consolidated: there are three ask_pipeworx variants and five overlapping prediction-market tools. The Openverse-specific core is only 6 tools, with 31 mostly unrelated Pipeworx and utility tools attached, making the server feel like a grab-bag rather than a purpose-built Openverse integration.

Completeness4/5

Each embedded subdomain covers its main lifecycle well: Openverse has search/get/related for images and audio, memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/list/unsubscribe/recent_alerts, and research has ask, grounded, deep_research, entity_profile, compare_entities, resolve_entity, and validate_claim. Minor gaps exist—notably no Openverse video/collection tooling and no explicit memory update—but agents can work around them without hitting dead ends.

Resources