Skip to main content
Glama

Ror

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations (all false) provide minimal safety signals, so the description carries the transparency burden. It excels: it discloses rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), the claim_token return behavior, that the team reads digests daily, that it's free and doesn't count against quota, and that feedback should reference Pipeworx tools/packs rather than user prompts. 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is readable and front-loaded with the core purpose, then logically flows through usage rules, exclusions, claim_token behavior, and constraints. It is somewhat verbose—the same 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection' idea is repeated with the alternative-server clarification—but every sentence adds functional value. It earns a 4, slightly penalized for 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 tool is a feedback submission channel with no output schema, but the description fully prepares the agent: it covers triggering conditions, scope boundaries, token-based response retrieval, rate limiting, and even sustainability ('free'). The nested 'context' object and enum are documented in the schema, and the description adds the essential workflow (file -> receive token -> later check status). This is complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful parameter-level guidance: it explains the claim_token flow in depth ('pass it back later... with no other arguments'), gives concrete examples for the 'type' enum, and instructs users on what to put in 'message' ('be specific... 1-2 sentences typical'). This goes beyond the schema's field descriptions, though it doesn't add much for 'context' beyond the schema.

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 clear, specific verb and resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It enumerates the exact feedback types (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and explicitly distinguishes from sibling tools by limiting scope to 'tools served by this Pipeworx connection.' This fully clarifies what the tool does and why an agent would choose it over the many research/data tools in the list.

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 for each feedback type with concrete examples ('wrong/stale data,' 'a tool you wish existed,' 'worked surprisingly well'). It also gives a clear exclusion rule: '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 exemplary usage guidance, including a heuristic for uncertainty ('Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists').

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

All Ror 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

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, deep_research overlaps with ask_pipeworx, and discover_tools/suggest_questions both serve a discovery role. The extremely detailed descriptions help, but the boundaries between meta-tools and research tools are genuinely confusing, especially with 34 tools in one namespace.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of bare verbs (get, search, recall), nouns (affiliation, entity_profile, recent_changes), and verb_noun phrases (resolve_entity, compare_entities, validate_claim). Some families are consistent (polymarket_*), but overall there is no uniform convention or prefix scheme, making the set feel arbitrary.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the 25+ threshold for 'too many.' While the broad data-platform scope explains some of the count, many tools are meta-utilities (feedback, trending, memory, subscription management) and there are near-duplicate variants (three ask_pipeworx forms, six Polymarket tools) that inflate the surface.

Completeness4/5

For a data-research platform the surface is impressively complete: lookup, grounded verification, entity profiles, comparisons, claim checking, subscription lifecycle, memory, and tool discovery are all covered. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct general-purpose web fetch, and ROR lacks create/update, which is acceptable for a curated registry), but agents should rarely hit dead ends.

Resources