Skip to main content
Glama

Pypi

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?

The description discloses several non-obvious behaviors beyond annotations: rate limit of 5 per identifier per day, claim_token retrieval mechanism for reading resolution status, free/no-quota usage, and that the team reads digests daily. These add real behavioral context not available from annotations or 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 earns its place: purpose, when-to-use, cross-server exclusion, token workflow, rate limit, and quota impact. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then expands with necessary nuances. No redundant or filler content.

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 no output schema and moderate complexity, the description covers all necessary context: expected input content, return behavior (claim_token), follow-up usage, rate limits, and scope boundaries. An agent could correctly select and invoke this tool without further clarification.

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 already provides 100% coverage of all 4 parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the claim_token round-trip flow ('Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later...') and gives context for message specificity ('don't paste the end-user's prompt'). This pushes it above baseline, though it doesn't deeply detail each param beyond 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 verb and resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It immediately enumerates feedback types (bug, feature/data_gap, praise), which distinguishes it from all sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or discover_tools that serve different purposes.

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 (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and when not to (for tools from other MCP servers), naming the alternative action ('file it with that server instead'). Also provides practical guidance on identifying Pipeworx tools and phrasing feedback. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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

All Pypi 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but some overlap exists among the polymarket tools (e.g., bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges) and the ask_pipeworx variants. The detailed descriptions help distinguish them, but an agent might still misselect in those groups.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a mostly consistent verb_noun pattern in snake_case. Minor deviations exist, such as 'remember' vs 'recall' and the mixed use of verbs and nouns (e.g., 'ask_pipeworx' vs 'polymarket_arbitrage'), but overall the pattern is predictable.

Tool Count3/5

With 35 tools, the server is on the heavy side. While each tool serves a specific purpose, the sheer number may be overwhelming, and some subsets (like the 7 polymarket tools) could potentially be consolidated. Still, the scope justifies many of them.

Completeness4/5

The server covers a wide range of functionalities: Python package management, company research, prediction markets, monitoring, memory, and data queries. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct tool for editing subscriptions), but the surface is generally comprehensive and well-rounded.

Resources