Skip to main content
Glama

Pixabay

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It discloses rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), the claim_token workflow (returns a token, can be reused to read resolution status), and that it is free and does not count against tool-call quota. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

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 long but every sentence delivers necessary guidance: purpose, use cases, exclusion, message content, token mechanics, and rate limits. It is front-loaded with the core action and follows a logical flow. Slightly verbose, but not wasteful.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the main return behavior (claim_token) and how to follow up. It also covers the four parameters, the exclusion rule, and operational constraints. It does not describe the immediate success response for non-claim_token submissions, but the token path is sufficiently specified.

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%, but the description adds meaningful guidance beyond field names: it instructs users to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs and not to paste end-user prompts, and explains the claim_token usage ('pass it back later... with no other arguments'). This elevates it above baseline.

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 enumerates the feedback types (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and differentiates itself from sibling tools by being the only feedback channel, while also noting what it is not for (other MCP servers).

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 when-to-use guidance (wrong/stale data, missing catalog entries, praise) and an explicit exclusion: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead.' It even offers a disambiguation heuristic ('Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists'). This is exemplary.

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

All Pixabay 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set contains multiple near-duplicate lookups: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded all do the same routing with minor variations, while deep_research and validate_claim also overlap in information retrieval. The two Pixabay search tools are distinct, but the abundance of overlapping data-lookup tools creates real ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

All names use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb_noun (search_images, validate_claim), others are noun-based (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback), and variants like ask_pipeworx_beta/grounded introduce ad-hoc suffixing. The naming does not follow a single predictable convention.

Tool Count1/5

With 33 tools, the count is far excessive for a Pixabay server. Only 2 tools (search_images, search_videos) actually relate to Pixabay; the remaining 31 are unrelated Pipeworx data, Polymarket, memory, and subscription tools. The scope is a severe mismatch.

Completeness1/5

For a server named Pixabay, the surface is severely incomplete: only basic image/video search is provided, with no tool for fetching details, downloading, managing collections, or any other lifecycle operation. Meanwhile, the Pipeworx domain is over-covered, but that is irrelevant to the server's stated purpose.

Resources