Skip to main content
Glama

Osha

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which are all false), the description discloses important behaviors: anonymous filing returns a claim_token for later status checks, rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free with no tool-call quota impact, and digests are read daily. This gives the agent a clear model of side effects and follow-up mechanics.

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 long (about nine sentences) but front-loaded with purpose and usage, and every sentence adds operational value — scope, exclusions, token mechanics, rate limits, and quota impact. It is verbose but not wasteful; a shorter version would lose necessary 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains the primary return artifact (claim_token), the follow-up flow, rate limits, and what the team does with feedback. It covers the tool's key behaviors and constraints comprehensively.

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% parameter coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema by instructing the agent to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs and not paste the end-user's prompt, and by explaining how to use claim_token ('pass it back later... with no other arguments').

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 verb+resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It enumerates concrete feedback categories (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and distinguishes from sibling tools by scoping feedback only to tools served by this Pipeworx connection, not other MCP servers.

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 when-to-use triggers: returns wrong/stale data (bug), desired tool not in catalog (feature/data_gap), or something worked well (praise). It also states when NOT to use it: for tools from a different MCP server, file with that server instead, and clarifies identity via 'Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists.'

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

All Osha 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

Several tools have similar purposes, such as the four ask_pipeworx variants and multiple prediction market analysis tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, etc.). While descriptions clarify differences, the overlap could cause misselection by an agent, especially with the high number of specialized market tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use snake_case, but the pattern is not fully consistent: some start with verbs (ask_pipeworx, bet_research, compare_entities) while others are noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts, osha_search). This minor inconsistency does not severely hinder readability.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is on the high side, but the server acts as a comprehensive data gateway covering multiple domains (financials, prediction markets, OSHA, etc.) and includes meta-tools (memory, subscriptions, feedback). The count is justified by the breadth, though it borders on being overwhelming.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers core workflows: data lookup (ask_pipeworx), entity profiles, comparisons, prediction market analysis, and memory management. There are minor gaps, such as no direct SEC filing retrieval tool (handled via ask_pipeworx), but the overall surface is comprehensive for the server's stated purpose.

Resources