Skip to main content
Glama

Protein Atlas

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 provide no safety hints (all false), so the description carries the full burden. It discloses key behavioral traits: anonymous filing returns a claim_token, passing it later retrieves resolution status, digests are read daily, and there's a rate limit ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'). It also clarifies that feedback is free and doesn't count against tool-call quota. No contradiction with 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 longer than average but every sentence serves a distinct purpose: it defines the tool, gives usage triggers, marks scope boundaries, explains the claim_token mechanism, mentions rate limits, and clarifies cost. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then unfolds into operational detail with no empty filler.

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 having no output schema, the description explains return behavior (claim_token) and the follow-up flow. It covers all key operational facets: what to report, what not to report, domain restriction, rate limit, and post-filing interaction. The nested context object is given schema-level detail, and the description ties the parameters together coherently.

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 each parameter has a description. The tool description supplements this by explaining the claim_token lifecycle ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})') and advising users to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools rather than pasting the end-user prompt. This adds behavioral context to the parameters beyond the raw schema, exceeding the baseline of 3.

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, specific statement: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It names the resource (feedback to Pipeworx team) and directly distinguishes from sibling research/inquiry tools like ask_pipeworx by framing itself as a feedback channel. It also enumerates typical reasons (bug, feature gap, praise) which instantly clarifies when to invoke it.

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 states when to use: '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 provides a critical exclusion: 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection — if the tool came from a different MCP server ... file it with that server instead.' This is a model example of when-to-use/not-use guidance.

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

All Protein Atlas 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

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all handle routed research queries, while ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap directly and the six Polymarket tools form a dense, easily confused cluster. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent will frequently struggle to pick the right tool among near-duplicate research and prediction-market options.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are readable and mostly snake_case, with useful prefixes like ask_pipeworx_ and polymarket_. However, conventions are mixed: some are verb_noun (search_genes, get_protein, generate_llms_txt), some are bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), and some are noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes, top_tissues). There is no single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is above the 25+ threshold for a heavy, hard-to-navigate set, and most of them are not related to the server's stated 'Protein Atlas' identity. Only three tools actually concern proteins, while the rest form a general data-research, Polymarket, memory, and subscription toolkit that feels like several servers merged into one.

Completeness2/5

For a Protein Atlas server, the surface is severely incomplete: only search_genes, get_protein, and top_tissues cover HPA, leaving pathology, cell-line, single-cell, blood, and other major HPA dimensions unaddressed. If the intended domain is instead the broader Pipeworx data router, the protein tools are an odd vestige and the completeness story is still muddled by overlapping meta-tools.

Resources