Skip to main content
Glama

Realestateapi

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations provide only false hints (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, destructive), which add no positive disclosure. The description compensates by revealing rate limits (5/day), the claim_token follow-up mechanism, no quota impact, and that the team reads digests daily. It does not describe the underlying write operation (creating a feedback ticket) in explicit side-effect terms, but the intended behavior is clear.

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 a single dense paragraph, but it is front-loaded with the core purpose and each subsequent sentence adds a distinct piece of operational guidance (scope, claiming, rate limits). It is longer than minimal, but every sentence earns its place; minor structure improvements could use bullets.

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 feedback tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers behavior: what happens when filing (returns a claim_token), how to check status later, daily review cadence, rate limits, and scope boundary. It is complete enough for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly in all described scenarios.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining how claim_token works as a follow-up read mechanism ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})'), and gives message writing guidance about not pasting end-user prompts. This adds meaningful semantic context.

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 enumerates concrete use cases (bug, feature, data gap, praise) and clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the designated feedback channel for 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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is provided: '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).' It also gives a clear exclusion for tools from other MCP servers and advises filing with that server instead, naming the alternative.

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

All Realestateapi 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
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping research/lookup purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded and validate_claim both verify claims against sources, and six polymarket_* tools overlap on edge/arbitrage detection. The three realestateapi_* tools are distinct but sit awkwardly beside 31 unrelated tools.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: snake_case prefixed tools (realestateapi_property_search), domain-prefixed tools (polymarket_edges), verb-noun tools (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes), and bare verbs (remember, forget, recall). There is no consistent verb_noun pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy, and the vast majority belong to the Pipeworx platform rather than the Realestateapi identity — only 3 of 34 tools are real-estate specific. The count is not well-scoped for the server's stated purpose.

Completeness2/5

For a real estate API the surface is severely thin: search, detail, and skip-trace only, with no market trends, tax history, rental estimates, or comparable-sales data. For the Pipeworx meta-domain the coverage is broader, but the server presents as Realestateapi, making the domain coverage a mismatch.

Resources