Skip to main content
Glama

Prayer Times

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With annotations lacking positive safety signals (readOnlyHint false), the description carries behavioral burden. It discloses rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), the claim_token workflow, and 'doesn't count against your tool-call quota'. It doesn't explicitly state that a message is transmitted to the team, though 'telling' and 'filing' imply it.

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 dense but each sentence earns its place, covering purpose, usage, exclusions, claim token flow, and rate limits. It is logically ordered but presented as a single long paragraph; breaking it into sections would improve readability without adding bulk.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description explains the return behavior (claim_token), follow-up mechanism, rate limit, scope restrictions, and why not to file for other servers. It fully compensates for lack of an output schema and is complete for a feedback 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. Description adds meaning beyond schema for claim_token ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"}) to read whether it was fixed'), and for message ('don't paste the end-user's prompt'). This elevates parameter clarity.

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 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist' and enumerates specific feedback types (bug, feature, data_gap, praise). It distinguishes from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx by focusing on reporting issues rather than asking questions.

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 triggers ('tool returns wrong/stale data', 'tool you wish existed isn't in catalog', 'worked surprisingly well') and a clear when-not-to-use exclusion ('ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection... file it with that server instead'). Also explains how to claim tokens for follow-up.

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

All Prayer Times 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, though there is some overlap between `ai_visibility_check` and `scan_competitor_ai_presence`, and between `bet_research` and `polymarket_edges`. Overall, an agent can distinguish them.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names follow snake_case but vary in prefix usage (e.g., `pipeworx_*`, `polymarket_*`, no prefix) and verb presence (e.g., `discover_tools` vs. `generate_llms_txt`). The pattern is readable but inconsistent.

Tool Count2/5

With 24 tools, the server is overloaded for the 'Prayer Times' name. Many tools are unrelated to prayer, suggesting poor scoping relative to the server's implied purpose.

Completeness2/5

For prayer times, the server includes core tools but lacks features like multi-day forecasts or advanced settings. However, the inclusion of many unrelated tools makes the set incoherent and incomplete for any single domain.

Resources