Skip to main content
Glama

Packagephobia

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses rate limiting, free usage, return of a claim_token, and the async read-back behavior. It also explains roadmap impact and daily digests. No annotations exist to contradict; the description adds rich behavioral context well beyond the generic annotation flags.

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 ideal but every sentence serves a purpose: usage, exclusions, token mechanics, rate limits, and quotas. It front-loads the core purpose before diving into details. While it could be tightened, the structure is logical and each clause adds value.

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 tool's complexity (4 params, nested context object, no output schema), the description fully covers the return behavior via claim_token, how to later retrieve resolution, rate limits, and what to include. The message length max appears in the schema, so the description doesn't need to repeat it. This is a complete picture for an agent to use the tool correctly.

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 meaningful extra semantics: the claim_token usage pattern with an example call, the flow of filing without an account, and concrete examples of pack/tool/vertical values. This goes beyond schema, though the schema already explains each parameter adequately.

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: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools by focusing on feedback for Pipeworx tools and explicitly contrasting with other MCP servers. The types (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) further clarify scope.

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?

Explicit 'Use when' guidance covers bug, feature/data_gap, and praise scenarios. It also provides a clear exclusion: 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection' and instructs to file elsewhere for other servers. This is exemplary usage differentiation.

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

All Packagephobia 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several near-overlapping query tools exist: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same underlying catalog, and ask_pipeworx_beta is currently described as identical to ask_pipeworx. The Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker) also heavily overlap and rely on lengthy descriptions to keep them apart.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set is uniformly snake_case and generally readable, but conventions are mixed: verb_noun (resolve_entity, suggest_questions), noun_verb (bet_research, ai_visibility_check), noun_adj (pipeworx_trending, recent_changes), and bare verbs (size, forget, recall) all appear. Variant suffixes like ask_pipeworx_beta and ask_pipeworx_grounded add further unpredictability.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools exceeds the 'too many' threshold and spans unrelated domains: package size, general data research, prediction markets, memory, and subscription management. The set would feel more coherent at roughly half the count, with several query and Polymarket tools consolidated.

Completeness3/5

For the dominant data-research purpose, the surface is reasonably complete: querying, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, entity profiles, comparisons, claim validation, and discovery are all covered. However, the server's stated identity ('Packagephobia') is nearly absent—only `size` and `scan_dependency` address package sizing—so the namesake domain is thin while unrelated domains are overbuilt.

Resources