Skip to main content
Glama

Reddit

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?

While annotations are all false (providing little signal), the description adds rich behavioral context: rate-limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), cost/free status, token-based follow-up ('Filing without an account returns a claim_token'), and team cadence ('reads digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap'). This far exceeds what annotations provide.

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?

The description is dense but every sentence carries essential information: purpose, conditions, exclusions, token flow, team process, rate limits. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, and each subsequent sentence earns its place without redundancy.

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 usage model, including edge cases like cross-server feedback, token-based status checks, and rate limits. It completes the schema and annotations by explaining the overall flow and expected outcomes, making it self-sufficient for an agent to invoke 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining claim_token mechanics, describing how to frame feedback ('in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs'), and clarifying what to avoid in the message ('don't paste the end-user's prompt'). This provides guidance beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It uses a specific verb ('tell') and resource ('Pipeworx team'), and distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx by focusing on feedback rather than questions.

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 provides when to use ('when a tool returns wrong/stale data', 'when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog', 'when something worked surprisingly well') and when not to use ('ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection... if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead'). This is clear, actionable guidance with exclusions.

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

All Reddit 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set has several near-duplicate tools: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly designed to be identical right now, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and bet_research all overlap on routed data lookup. The three Reddit tools are distinct, but they are dwarfed by a large cluster of unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket tools, making the actual purpose of the set hard to pin down.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are wildly mixed: some tools use verb_noun (get_post, subscribe, suggest_questions), some use noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts, pipeworx_trending), and some use ad-hoc names (ask_pipeworx, bet_research, scan_dependency). Within sub-families (polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*) names are consistent, but overall there is no single predictable pattern.

Tool Count1/5

34 tools is excessive for a server named 'Reddit' when only 3 of them (get_post, get_subreddit, search_posts) actually relate to Reddit. The remaining 31 tools cover unrelated domains like Pipeworx data routing, Polymarket betting, memory management, and npm dependency scanning—an extreme scope mismatch for the advertised server name.

Completeness1/5

The Reddit surface is severely incomplete: it offers read-only post/subreddit/search functionality with no create, edit, delete, vote, comment, or user-profile operations. Conversely, the Pipeworx tooling is over-complete relative to the 'Reddit' name, covering data lookups, prediction markets, subscriptions, and memory—none of which belong in a Reddit server.

Resources