Skip to main content
Glama

randomuser

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations only indicate non-read-only behavior, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: the claim_token flow for anonymous filing, the need to pass it later as a follow-up, rate limits (5 per identifier per day), free usage, and content policies (don't paste end-user prompt). This goes well beyond what the annotations offer.

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 front-loaded with purpose and use cases, and every sentence carries operational information: scope, content guidance, claim_token flow, team digest, rate limit, and free usage. It is longer than minimal but justified by the tool's complexity, though it could be slightly tightened to improve readability.

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, the description fully covers the asynchronous claim_token follow-up, rate limiting, scope boundaries, and content instructions. It also clarifies the feedback types and alternatives, leaving no critical gaps for an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already covers all 4 parameters with 100% described coverage, providing a solid baseline. The description adds value by explaining how to use claim_token as a standalone follow-up argument and by advising message content (describe in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs), but it does not systematically elaborate on every parameter since the schema already does.

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') and enumerates the feedback types (broken, missing, needs to exist). It clearly distinguishes the tool from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or discover_tools by positioning it as a reporting channel for Pipeworx tool issues.

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 the tool: for bugs (wrong/stale data), feature requests/data gaps, and praise. It also provides a clear exclusion for tools from other MCP servers, instructing the agent to file with that server instead, which prevents misuse.

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

All randomuser 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
Disambiguation1/5

Multiple tools have nearly identical purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly described as identical, and ask_pipeworx_grounded differs only in grounding. generate_users and generate_by_gender overlap, as do ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence and the several polymarket_* tools that all target edge detection and arbitrage. An agent would struggle to select the correct tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

All names use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some start with verbs (generate_users, resolve_entity, validate_claim), some are nouns (entity_profile, deep_research, recent_changes), and some are compound noun phrases (ai_visibility_check, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_arbitrage). There is no predictable verb_noun structure across the set.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well above the 'too many' threshold, and the set includes many meta-tools, memory helpers, and niche prediction-market tools. While the broad domain might justify some diversity, the count feels bloated and dilutes the server's focus, especially given the server name suggests only random user generation.

Completeness4/5

For the apparent core domain (data lookups, research, prediction market analysis, subscriptions), the tool surface is quite comprehensive: it covers direct queries, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, claim verification, discovery, trends, memory, and subscription management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct CRUD for user-generated profiles beyond creation), but overall the feature set feels well covered.

Resources