Skip to main content
Glama

Pirate Weather

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?

Annotations only state low-level hints, so the description carries the burden. It discloses rate limiting (5 per identifier per day), the free/no-quota nature, the claim_token workflow for later retrieval, and the constraint that only Pipeworx tools are in scope. No contradictions exist between this and the annotations.

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 typical, but nearly every sentence adds necessary operational detail (use cases, scope exclusion, token workflow, rate limit). It is front-loaded with the core action and organized logically, though it could be tightened slightly without losing 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 there is no output schema, the description sufficiently explains what the tool returns (a claim_token when filing without an account, and status/changes when checking a token). It also covers routing restrictions, privacy (don't paste user prompt), and operational expectations, making it complete for this complexity.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful practical context beyond the schema: instructs not to paste the end-user prompt, explains how to use claim_token for follow-up, and clarifies issue framing relative to Pipeworx tools/packs. This is useful but not exhaustive for every nested context field.

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 identifies the verb (Tell the Pipeworx team) and resource (Pipeworx feedback) while defining concrete use cases like bug, feature, data_gap, and praise. It distinguishes this from sibling tools such as ask_pipeworx by emphasizing this is specifically for reporting issues with Pipeworx-served tools.

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 guidance is given on when to use the tool ('Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data...'), and it explicitly directs users away from using it for tools from other MCP servers ('file it with that server instead'). It also clarifies scope, message requirements, and claim_token usage, making selection unambiguous.

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

All Pirate Weather 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Tools are mostly distinct in purpose but some overlaps exist, e.g., multiple ask_pipeworx variants and several polymarket analysis tools. Detailed descriptions help, but the sheer variety and similar intent of some tools could confuse agents.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is highly inconsistent: snake_case (ai_visibility_check), single words (forecast), action_noun (bet_research), prefixes (polymarket_, pipeworx_), and descriptive phrases (scan_competitor_ai_presence). No uniform pattern.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is too many for a server named 'Pirate Weather' that only has two weather-specific tools. The tool count feels inflated with many meta-tools and unrelated domains, exceeding a coherent scope.

Completeness2/5

Coverage is incomplete for the implied weather focus (only two tools). Other domains like prediction markets are better covered, but overall the surface is a mix of partial offerings with clear gaps (e.g., no update/delete for subscriptions).

Resources