Skip to main content
Glama

Producthunt

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.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations provide only false hints (readOnly, destructive, idempotent), so the description carries the burden. It discloses rate limits ('5 per identifier per day'), the claim_token workflow (returned on filing and usable to check status later), operational details (free, no quota), and content rules (don't paste end-user prompt). This goes well beyond 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 long but front-loaded with purpose and every sentence adds value (use cases, exclusion, token mechanism, rate limits). No filler, though it could be slightly tighter; still appropriately sized for the complexity.

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?

With no output schema, the description thoroughly covers return semantics (claim_token), follow-up reading, rate limiting, and scope. For a feedback tool with four parameters, this is complete and self-contained.

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% with detailed parameter descriptions, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra guidance on how to use claim_token (example call) and constraints on message content (describe in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, don't paste user's prompt), raising it to 4.

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 the tool's function with a specific verb and resource ('Tell the Pipeworx team'), and enumerates use cases (bug, feature/data_gap, praise). It distinguishes from siblings like ask_pipeworx by being the sole feedback channel.

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?

Explicitly specifies when to use (broken/stale data, missing capability, praise) and when not to (tools from other MCP servers), with an alternative ('file it with that server instead'). It also clarifies scope to this Pipeworx connection and offers a heuristic for identification.

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

All Producthunt 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 are functionally near-identical: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly a duplicate of ask_pipeworx (descriptions say they 'currently match exactly'), and ask_pipeworx_grounded differs only in answer-extraction mode. The six Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) heavily overlap on edge-finding and fill-risk, and ai_visibility_check duplicates scan_competitor_ai_presence's per-entity probing. Agents will frequently misselect among these.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming is consistently snake_case with a mostly verb_noun pattern (get_post, top_launches, subscribe, forget, validate_claim, resolve_entity). Minor deviations exist where nouns lead (entity_profile, recent_changes, recent_alerts, bet_research), and polymarket_* names use a domain-prefix style rather than pure verb_noun, but the overall pattern is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is at the heavy end, and the count is badly mismatched to the server's stated identity: it is named 'Producthunt' yet only 2 of 33 tools (get_post, top_launches) are Product Hunt related — the rest are Pipeworx data lookup, prediction-market, memory, and subscription tools. The redundancy (duplicate ask_pipeworx_beta, overlapping polymarket tools) inflates the count without adding surface.

Completeness2/5

Judged against the Product Hunt domain implied by the server name, the surface is severely incomplete: coverage is limited to list-top-launches and get-one-post, with no search, users, comments, votes, collections, or categories — and no way to act on Product Hunt data at all. As a general Pipeworx data platform the coverage is broader, but for the named purpose there are large gaps that will force agent failures.

Resources