Skip to main content
Glama

Paleobiodb

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?

Annotations are all false and provide no safety signals, so the description carries the burden. It discloses the claim_token flow ('Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later...'), rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), and operational details ('The team reads digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap'). This goes well beyond 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?

Although longer than one sentence, every clause serves a purpose: purpose, triggers, scope exclusion, token flow, process transparency, rate limits, and cost. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and logically organized.

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 4 params with 100% schema coverage but no output schema. The description compensates by explaining the token lifecycle, exclusions, and expectations. It covers purpose, usage, limitations, and post-submission flow, making it complete for an agent to invoke 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 value by reinforcing the enum meanings ('bug', 'feature/data_gap', 'praise'), giving token usage syntax ('pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})'), and advising to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, which informs the context and message params.

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 statement: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It names the verb (tell), resource (Pipeworx team), and scope (broken/missing/exist). It distinguishes from siblings by explicitly scoping to tools served by this Pipeworx connection and directing other-server feedback away.

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 use-case triggers: '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).' Also gives a clear exclusion: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead.' This is explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use with an alternative action.

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

All Paleobiodb 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set mixes general-purpose Pipeworx tools (ask_pipeworx, ai_visibility_check, bet_research) with only three paleontology-specific tools (find_fossils, get_taxon, list_subtaxa). Multiple similar 'ask_pipeworx' variants further blur distinctions, making it difficult for an agent to select the right tool without deep domain knowledge.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are mostly in snake_case and somewhat descriptive, but the naming conventions vary widely: imperative verbs (find_fossils), interrogative (suggest_questions), and nouns (recent_alerts). The presence of multiple 'ask_pipeworx' variants with inconsistent suffixes (beta, grounded) adds confusion.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the server is oversized for its claimed paleontology focus. The vast majority of tools are unrelated to Paleobiology, making the server feel more like a general-purpose data API than a specialized paleontology tool. A focused server should have a smaller, targeted set.

Completeness2/5

For the Paleobiology Database purpose, the coverage is severely lacking: only three tools are directly relevant (find_fossils, get_taxon, list_subtaxa). Missing essential operations like searching taxa by name, retrieving occurrences by location, or accessing collections data. The tool set is not a coherent interface for the domain.

Resources