Skip to main content
Glama

Qrcode

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. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the rate limit ('5 per identifier per day'), the free/no-quota behavior, the claim_token workflow (anonymous filing returns token; later pass it back to read resolution status), and the team's daily digest review. This goes far beyond what annotations provide.

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 the core purpose. Every subsequent sentence adds critical operational detail (eligibility scope, claim token mechanics, rate limits). While it could be trimmed, the complexity of the tool justifies the length. The structure flows logically from purpose to use cases to exclusions to mechanics.

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 complex behavior and no output schema, the description covers all necessary aspects: purpose, scope, exclusions, feedback type definitions, claim token lifecycle, rate limiting, and community impact. It even explains what happens after filing (token return, later status read) despite lacking an explicit output schema. This is fully complete for an agent to use correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds significant meaning: it clarifies that claim_token is used for a separate read operation ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})'), that message should not include the end-user's prompt, and that context fields refer to Pipeworx-specific pack/tool/vertical identifiers. This enriches all parameters beyond their schema descriptions.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It distinguishes the tool from all sibling tools by making clear it is for feedback about Pipeworx tools themselves, not for performing research or queries. The four feedback types (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) are explicitly listed.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use criteria by mapping each feedback type to a concrete situation: 'wrong/stale data (bug), tool you wish existed (feature/data_gap), worked surprisingly well (praise).' It also gives a clear exclusion: feedback about non-Pipeworx MCP servers should be filed elsewhere. This is exemplary usage guidance with both positive and negative conditions.

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

All Qrcode 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool families blur together: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route questions to the same underlying data sources for slightly different modes, and the six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research all orbit prediction-market opportunity-finding. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent would need to read deeply to reliably distinguish them.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are all readable snake_case and some clusters are consistent (ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*), but the set mixes verb-first names like create_qr and validate_claim with noun-first names like entity_profile, recent_alerts, polymarket_edges, and pipeworx_trending. There is no single predictable naming convention.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is above the 25+ threshold and reads as a full platform rather than a focused tool. For a server labeled Qrcode, only two tools are QR-related, so the count is severely inflated even if the data-research breadth is defensible.

Completeness2/5

The Pipeworx data-research surface is fairly complete: query, grounded verification, entity profiling, comparisons, recent changes, discovery, memory, and subscriptions are all represented. But the QR domain for the stated server purpose is only create/read with no batch, styling, or management, and the overall set has no coherent domain to be complete against.

Resources