Skip to main content
Glama

Postscript

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 low-value annotations (all false), the description discloses substantial behavioral context: filing without an account returns a claim_token for later status checks, the token can be passed back to read resolution, rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free, and the team reads digests daily. No annotation contradiction exists; annotations agree that this is not read-only or idempotent.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage criteria, exclusions, token flow, rate limits, and cost are all covered without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core action and then expands into necessary operational details.

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?

This tool has no output schema, but the description fully compensates: it explains the return token, how to use it, the feedback categories, the required specificity for the message, and operational constraints. For an agent deciding whether and how to invoke this tool, the description provides complete contextual coverage.

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, but the description adds meaningful semantics beyond the schema: it explains the claim_token workflow (filing vs. checking), instructs users to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs rather than pasting end-user prompts, and clarifies the 'other' type. These additions justify one point 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 clear verb+resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It defines four distinct feedback categories (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and differentiates from sibling tools by explicitly scoping to tools served by this Pipeworx connection.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug)...'), when-not-to-use ('if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead'), and provides a disambiguation heuristic ('Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists'). This is exemplary usage guidance.

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

All Postscript 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 clear, distinct purposes with detailed descriptions that differentiate them. However, there is some overlap among data query tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx, deep_research, entity_profile) and among Polymarket analysis tools, which could cause confusion for an agent.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names lack a consistent pattern, mixing snake_case (ai_visibility_check, bet_research) with descriptive phrases (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt) and some with verbs (list_subscriptions, remember). This inconsistency makes it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count3/5

With 34 tools, the server covers a broad scope including data querying, Polymarket analysis, SMS management, and utilities. While many tools are justified, the number feels slightly high and some tools (e.g., multiple Polymarket tools) might be consolidated.

Completeness4/5

The server provides comprehensive coverage for data analysis, entity resolution, fact-checking, and monitoring. However, SMS management lacks create/update operations for keywords and subscribers, and there is no tool for sending SMS messages, indicating minor gaps.

Resources