Skip to main content
Glama

Pombase

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, so the description carries the full burden of disclosure. It reveals the dual-mode behavior (submission vs. claim_token retrieval), the rate limit ('5 per identifier per day'), and the account-free access. It also warns against pasting end-user prompts, a nuanced behavioral guideline. No behaviors are hidden.

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?

Despite being longer than average, every sentence earns its place: purpose, triggers, exclusions, content guidance, claim_token workflow, rate limit, and cost. The first sentence is front-loaded with purpose. There is zero fluff or redundancy; even the roadmap-impact sentence adds motivational context.

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 a dual-mode behavior (submit vs. retrieve), exclusions based on MCP server origin, and no output schema. The description fully compensates: it explains what happens with and without an account, how to read the follow-up, and the scope of the tool. Given the complexity, the description is complete enough 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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining claim_token usage ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"}) to read whether it was fixed') and advising on message content ('don't paste the end-user's prompt'). These extras qualify as param-level guidance beyond schema 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' This clearly distinguishes the tool from its siblings, which are all research/discovery tools. The feedback scope (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) is explicitly enumerated, leaving no ambiguity about the tool's function.

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 guidance with concrete 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).' It also gives a clear exclusion: 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection' and directs users to file with the appropriate server otherwise. This is model-level guidance that prevents misrouting.

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

All Pombase 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes, notably ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_beta vs ask_pipeworx_grounded, and the cluster of polymarket tools covers adjacent prediction-market analysis territory. The PomBase-specific tools are distinct, but the overall set creates real selection ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names follow a readable snake_case style and many use verb-first patterns, but there is notable mixing: ask_pipeworx is a brand-style exception, entity_profile and polymarket_arbitrage are noun-first, and remember/recall/forget form an inconsistent trio. Not chaotic, but not a clean predictable convention.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is excessive for a server named Pombase, where only get_gene and get_reference actually serve that domain. Even as a broad data-research server, the count is above the 25-tool threshold and includes many auxiliary utilities that feel bolted on rather than part of a focused surface.

Completeness2/5

The PomBase-specific coverage is severely thin: only systematic-ID gene lookup and PubMed-ID reference lookup, with no gene-name search, annotations browsing, phenotype data, or sequence access. The broader Pipeworx surface is extensive, but for the apparent Pombase purpose, agents will frequently hit dead ends.

Resources