Skip to main content
Glama

Rba

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations are all false, so they provide no safety profile; the description compensates by disclosing the daily rate limit, the claim_token retrieval workflow, and that it is free/non-quota. It stops short of describing data handling/storage, but the workflow is sufficiently transparent for the agent to set expectations.

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 longer than average, but each sentence earns its place: triggers, exclusions, claim_token usage, rate limits, and quota impact are all relevant. It is front-loaded with purpose and usage, with operational details following.

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?

Given no output schema, the description still explains what filing returns (claim_token) and how to use it to read resolution status. It also covers edge cases like cross-server feedback, rate limiting, and message content policy, making it complete for this tool's complexity.

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 covers 100% of parameters, so baseline is 3; the description adds value by translating feedback scenarios into type categories and showing the claim_token call form ('pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})'). It also instructs agents to reference Pipeworx tools/packs rather than pasting user prompts, which clarifies message construction.

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 concrete action ('Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist') and names the resource. It clearly differentiates from sibling research/ask tools by being the channel for reporting issues and praise about Pipeworx tools.

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?

It supplies explicit triggers: bugs, feature/data gaps, and praise, and maps them to the type enum. It also gives an exclusion rule ('ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection') and directs cross-server issues to the appropriate server.

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

All Rba 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 clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route natural-language questions to the same underlying catalog, and polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, and polymarket_kalshi_spread all target prediction-market opportunities. entity_profile, recent_changes, and compare_entities also share company-research territory, making misselection likely without reading long descriptions carefully.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but conventions are mixed: some are verb_noun (list_subscriptions, generate_llms_txt, resolve_entity), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, rba_cash_rate), and some are brand-prefixed product names (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_trending). The polymarket_* and rba_* families are internally consistent, but the overall surface has no single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is a large surface, well above the 25+ threshold that typically becomes unwieldy. While the server covers a broad domain (data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, company research), many tools are niche variants (ask_pipeworx_beta, polymarket_edge_tracker, scan_competitor_ai_presence) that add cognitive load rather than earning their place.

Completeness3/5

Core flows are well covered: memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/list/unsubscribe/recent_alerts, and data access has ask_pipeworx plus grounded and research variants. However, the surface is sprawly and uneven — prediction markets get six tools while other domain areas rely on generic routing, and the server's overall purpose is diffuse enough that gaps are hard to assess cleanly.

Resources