Skip to main content
Glama

Quotable

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (which are all false, indicating the description carries the burden), it discloses that filing without an account returns a claim_token, how to later use that token to check status, the rate limit (5 per identifier per day), that it is free, and that it does not count against the tool-call quota. This is rich behavioral context with no contradiction to 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?

Although the description is long, every sentence serves a purpose: purpose, use cases, exclusions, token mechanism, rate limit, and cost. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then flows logically into guidelines and consequences. No wasted words.

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?

The description fully covers the tool's behavior for an agent: what it does, when to use, exclusions, token flow, rate limits, and expected team response. It is complete even without an output schema, and it stands out clearly among the sibling tools.

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%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantic guidance: it scopes the feedback to tools served by this Pipeworx connection, instructs describing issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, and explicitly says not to paste the end-user's prompt. These constraints are not fully captured in the schema and add real value.

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 and resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on feedback submission rather than research or queries, and it enumerates the exact triggers (bug, feature/data_gap, praise).

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 scenarios (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and a clear when-not-to-use exclusion: tools from a different MCP server. It also directs the user to file elsewhere for external server issues and gives practical instructions about what to include (Pipeworx tools/packs) and what to avoid (end-user prompt).

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

All Quotable 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

The ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) is highly overlapping—two of them are explicitly identical right now—and the six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research create unclear boundaries between prediction-market analysis tools. Company-focused tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, resolve_entity) also partially overlap in what they fetch, making tool selection error-prone.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tool names follow a clear snake_case pattern with descriptive verbs (search_quotes, resolve_entity, validate_claim, subscribe, unsubscribe). There is good use of family prefixes like polymarket_* and pipeworx_*, though the Pipeworx family mixes prefix and suffix placement (ask_pipeworx vs. pipeworx_feedback), which is a minor inconsistency.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is far too many for a server named 'Quotable', especially since only 4 tools (get_authors, list_tags, random_quote, search_quotes) relate to quotes. The rest span data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, and dependency scanning—an extremely broad, unfocused scope that overwhelms the apparent purpose.

Completeness3/5

The quote-related surface is minimal but functional (random, search, authors, tags), though missing obvious operations like get_quote_by_id. The data-lookup and prediction-market domains are thoroughly covered with grounding, research, arbitrage, and fill-risk tools, so the broader set is complete—but it does not serve the server's stated identity as a quotes provider.

Resources