Skip to main content
Glama

recipes

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 and provide no behavioral hints, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the claim_token flow (filing without an account returns a token, passing it back later to read status), rate limiting ('5 per identifier per day'), that feedback is free, and that it doesn't count against tool-call quota. No annotation contradiction exists.

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 long, every sentence earns its place: it covers purpose, use cases, exclusions, claim token mechanics, rate limits, cost, and roadmap impact. The content is front-loaded with the core purpose first, and no redundant filler is present.

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?

Despite having 4 optional parameters, one enum with 5 values, a nested object, and no output schema, the description covers all necessary context: when to use, what happens on filing, how to retrieve status, rate limits, and the boundary of scope (Pipeworx-only). The absence of an output schema is mitigated by describing the claim_token response behavior.

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 parameters with descriptions (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds significant value by explaining the claim_token usage flow and mapping the type field categories to concrete use cases (bug, feature, data_gap, praise). This lifts it above the baseline.

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 clearly defines the tool's purpose as a feedback channel, distinct from all sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or discover_tools. The scope is further clarified by explicitly limiting it to tools served by this Pipeworx connection.

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 guidance: bug (wrong/stale data), feature/data_gap (wish a tool existed), and praise. It also gives a clear exclusion: if the tool came from a different MCP server, file with that server instead. This is textbook usage differentiation.

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

All recipes 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a highly specific purpose with detailed descriptions, making them easily distinguishable. Overlaps are minimal; for instance, Pipeworx and Polymarket tools have distinct roles within their domains.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent snake_case pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), but a few single-word names (e.g., forget, recall) deviate slightly, causing minor inconsistency.

Tool Count2/5

The server is named 'recipes' but contains only 4 recipe-related tools out of 34. The majority cover unrelated domains like finance, betting, and data queries, making the scope overly broad and misaligned with the server name.

Completeness2/5

For the 'recipes' domain, essential CRUD operations and features like meal planning are missing. While the general tool set is extensive, it lacks critical recipe-related functionality, leaving significant gaps for the intended purpose.

Resources