Skip to main content
Glama

Pipeworx

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Search MCP Directory

search_mcp_directory
Read-onlyIdempotent

Search thousands of MCP servers by use case (e.g., 'database', 'email', 'calendar'). Returns community and hosted servers. Use to find tools beyond Pipeworx.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
limitNoMax results (default 10)
queryYesSearch query
categoryNoFilter by category

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesSearch query used
totalYesTotal number of matching results
resultsYesMCP server results

TDQS

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, so the description does not need to repeat those. It adds that the tool searches a directory of thousands of MCP servers and returns community and hosted servers, which is relevant behavioral context without contradiction.

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?

Two sentences, each delivering core information: what the tool does and when to use it. No extraneous words, front-loaded with the action, and examples are embedded efficiently.

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 output schema exists, return values are handled. The description covers purpose, scope, and usage context thoroughly, with high schema coverage and clear annotations. Nothing additional is needed for an agent to understand how and when to invoke this 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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by providing example values for the query parameter and clarifying it is by use case, enhancing understanding beyond the schema's basic descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool searches MCP servers by use case, with examples like 'database', 'email', 'calendar'. It distinguishes itself from siblings by noting it returns servers beyond Pipeworx, avoiding confusion with internal search tools like search_packs.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description specifies to use this tool when looking for tools beyond Pipeworx, providing clear context. While it doesn't explicitly list when not to use, the phrase 'beyond Pipeworx' implies it is for external servers, and sibling names suggest alternatives like search_packs are for internal tools.

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

All Pipeworx 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, especially the central data access tools like ask_pipeworx, deep_research, entity_profile, and compare_entities. However, the multiple polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) and the similar ask_pipeworx variants could cause confusion, especially for an agent quickly scanning options.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are mostly snake_case and follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., compare_entities, search_packs, resolve_entity). Some deviations exist, such as pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage (starting with a noun), and single-word names like forget and remember, but overall the style is readable and consistent.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the server feels overly heavy. While the broad domain (structured data across many sources) justifies a large number, the count exceeds the recommended 15–25 range, making it unwieldy for agents to navigate efficiently without extensive discovery.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of domains: company financials, drugs, economics, prediction markets, weather, and even MCP discovery. There are few obvious gaps given the stated purpose, though some areas like social media or international data could be added. Overall, the surface is well-rounded.

Resources