Skip to main content
Glama

Property Records

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 only say readOnlyHint=false and destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context: the claim_token workflow ('Filing without an account returns a `claim_token`; pass it back later...'), rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), and cost ('Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota'). It also explains how feedback is processed ('read digests daily'), which is not in annotations.

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 relatively long but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage criteria, exclusions, claim_token flow, rate limit, and cost. It is front-loaded with the main action and structured to answer likely agent questions in order. No filler or redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 4 params (required: 0), a nested context object, and no output schema, the description provides a complete picture: what to report, how to report, what happens with the response (claim_token), how to check resolution, and operational limits (rate limit, quota). It also clarifies scope (only Pipeworx tools) which is critical for agent decision-making.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. However, the description adds meaning beyond the schema for the claim_token parameter by explaining the two-step usage flow and its 'no other arguments' constraint. It also reinforces message specificity ('Be specific (which tool, what error, what data was missing)') and contextualizes the context object. This additional workflow detail justifies a 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 purpose: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It uses a specific verb ('Tell') and resource ('Pipeworx team'), and enumerates feedback types (bug, feature, praise) that distinguish it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or discover_tools.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use is provided: '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 exclusions: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead,' plus a hint for identifying Pipeworx tools. This exceeds minimal guidance.

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

All Property Records 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical variants of the same router, and there are six polymarket-related tools with overlapping arb/edge/fill-risk purposes. Property-specific tools are distinct but buried among many unrelated meta-tools.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but the structural pattern is inconsistent: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim), others noun_verb (property_lookup), and many are noun_noun (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage). No clear systematic convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is far too many for a server labeled 'Property Records'—only two tools (property_lookup, property_coverage) actually serve that purpose. The rest belong to unrelated domains (general data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions), making the surface feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

For a property-records server, the surface is incomplete: it only provides lookup plus a coverage matrix, with no other property-related operations (e.g., tax history, comparable sales) and no way to handle unsupported jurisdictions beyond a simple flag. The unrelated tools do not contribute to the stated domain, leaving the core purpose thinly covered.

Resources