Skip to main content
Glama

Pypi Stats

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

As annotations are all false, the description fully discloses the tool's behavioral profile: it is rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free, does not count against quota, and returning a claim_token is required for follow-up checks. It also explains that feedback directly affects roadmap, adding rich context beyond the schema.

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 long but every sentence adds unique value: it front-loads the primary purpose, then guides usage, exclusions, token mechanics, and policy in a logical sequence. No redundancy or fluff; the length is justified by the tool's 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description explains the return value (claim_token) and its lifecycle. It covers prerequisites, rate limits, and even what happens after submission (daily digests, roadmap impact). The nested context object is clarified by the schema, and the description fills in all operational gaps.

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, but the description enhances the claim_token parameter by specifying the exact usage pattern ('pass the pwfb_… token that filing returned, with no other arguments') and elaborates on message expectations. This adds concrete operational detail not present in the schema.

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 enumerates exact use cases (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and explicitly distinguishes itself from other MCP servers' tools. This fully differentiates the tool from its siblings.

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 guidance: '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 states when NOT to use it (feedback for other MCP servers) and directs the user to the correct alternative, making exclusion criteria crystal clear.

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

All Pypi Stats 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There is significant overlap between tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, all performing similar data lookup functions. Additionally, multiple prediction market tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk) have overlapping purposes. An agent would struggle to choose the correct tool without deep understanding of subtle differences.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern and use clear domain prefixes (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_, python_) and verb_noun structure (e.g., validate_claim, compare_entities). Minor inconsistency exists with tools like 'overall' not following verb_noun, but overall pattern is predictable.

Tool Count3/5

With 36 tools, the count is high but justifiable given the broad array of capabilities (data queries, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions). However, the server name 'Pypi Stats' suggests a narrow focus, making the count feel excessive for that purpose. The actual scope is wide, so the count is borderline appropriate.

Completeness4/5

For its actual scope as a data query and analysis platform, the tool set is quite complete: it covers company profiles, comparisons, claim verification, trend analysis, and prediction market insights. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update/delete for most data types), but core query and lookup operations are well covered.

Resources