Skip to main content
Glama

Peeringdb

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?

Despite annotations providing no help (all false), the description discloses critical behaviors: the claim_token mechanism for later status checks, rate limiting ('5 per identifier per day'), cost/quotas ('Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota'), and processing cadence ('reads digests daily'). It also warns against pasting end-user prompts, adding operational context well beyond what annotations offer.

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 longer than average but every sentence serves a purpose: identifying the action, giving use cases, defining scope boundaries, describing the token workflow, and noting constraints. It is front-loaded with the primary function and then logically flows into usage details. No filler or redundancy.

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 moderate complexity (4 params, nested context object, no output schema), the description covers all necessary context: what to submit, scope restrictions, behavioral details, rate limits, and the follow-up token mechanism. It fully equips an agent to decide when and how to 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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: it explains how claim_token is used to read previous reports and gives an example call format (pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})). This adds practical value not present in the schema.

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 and resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It explicitly lists the feedback categories (bug, feature/data_gap, praise), which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or research tools. This is a specific, unambiguous purpose.

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 provides explicit when-to-use conditions ('Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data... feature/data_gap... praise') and a clear exclusion: '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 exemplary usage guidance with a named alternative action.

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

All Peeringdb 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

Many tools overlap in purpose: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all provide data retrieval with subtle differences. The Polymarket suite (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) and AI visibility tools (ai_visibility_check, scan_competitor_ai_presence) also have fuzzy boundaries. While some tools are clearly distinct, the overall set has significant ambiguity that could lead to misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix conventions: some are verb_noun (search_networks, compare_entities, remember, forget), others are noun_compound (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, ask_pipeworx), and a few are verb-only (recall, forget). The pattern is inconsistent, with no clear naming strategy across the tool surface.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the server is heavily overloaded. While it serves as a general data platform, many tools are meta-level (discover_tools, suggest_questions) or peripheral (subscriptions, memory). The count feels excessive for the core purpose, and many tools could be consolidated or removed.

Completeness1/5

Despite the server name 'Peeringdb', only three tools (search_networks, search_facilities, search_exchanges) directly serve that domain. The vast majority of tools cover unrelated areas (Pipeworx data, Polymarket betting, AI visibility, memory, subscriptions). For the declared purpose of PeeringDB, the surface is severely incomplete—missing common operations like retrieving network details, viewing IX members, or managing peering policies.

Resources