Skip to main content
Glama

Overpass

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?

Annotations are all false (no read-only, idempotent, etc.), so the description must disclose behavior. It does: anonymous filing returns a claim_token, passing that token later returns status/resolution, rate limiting is 5/day, and it's free with no quota. Also notes the team reads digests daily, setting expectations for response time.

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 criteria, exclusion, message framing, claim_token behavior, rate limit, and cost. It is well-structured, moving from what → when → how → constraints, with no redundancy or filler.

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?

The tool has a nuanced behavior (filing vs. claiming) and no output schema, but the description covers all bases: use cases, exclusions, message quality guidance, token flow, rate limits, and cost. It is complete for an agent to select and correctly invoke the tool.

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 each parameter is already documented. The description adds meaningful guidance beyond the schema: describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, don't paste the user's prompt (for message), and explains the two-step usage of claim_token (pass it alone to read status). This extra context justifies a score above baseline 3.

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+resource pairing: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly distinguishes this tool from siblings by limiting scope to tools served by this Pipeworx connection and explicitly calling out other MCP servers as out of bounds.

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 use cases (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and equally explicit exclusions ('if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead'). It also instructs not to paste end-user prompts and explains the claim_token flow for following up, which is valuable when-to-use guidance.

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

All Overpass 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but the ask_pipeworx trio (stable, beta, grounded) are near-identical variants, and the five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research heavily overlap in the edge-finding space. Detailed descriptions help, but an agent could easily misselect among these clusters.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are all snake_case and readable, but conventions vary: ask_pipeworx_* uses a prefix pattern, polymarket_* is consistent, yet others mix verbs (scan_competitor_ai_presence, generate_llms_txt) with nouns (entity_profile, resolve_entity). No single verb_noun pattern governs the set.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold and feels like multiple servers merged into one: structured data routing, prediction markets, OSM, memory, subscriptions, and AI-visibility checks. The breadth is impressive but the count is heavy for a single tool surface.

Completeness4/5

The surface is notably complete for its blended domain: memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/list/unsubscribe, data access has multiple router modes plus deep research and claim validation, and prediction markets have research, edge, arbitrage, fill-risk, and cross-venue tools. Minor gaps exist (no subscription update, no explicit reverse-geocoding tool), but core workflows are covered.

Resources