Skip to main content
Glama

Rss2json

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

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations provide no useful safety hints (all booleans false), so the description carries the burden. It discloses the claim_token workflow (returns a token for later lookup), rate limiting (5/day/identifier), quota exemption (free, doesn't count against tool-call quota), and that feedback is read daily. This is substantive behavioral context beyond the annotations.

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 every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage, exclusions, token workflow, rate limits, and quota impact. It is appropriately sized for the tool's complexity, though better formatting (e.g., bullet points) could improve scannability.

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 tool with 4 optional parameters, a nested object, no output schema, and minimal annotations, the description is remarkably complete. It covers purpose, when to use, when not to use, input guidance, return behavior (claim_token), rate limits, quota, and processing timeline, fully equipping an agent to invoke the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description reinforces claim_token usage and mentions context (tools/packs) but does not add new semantic meaning beyond what the schema already provides. The enum values are already fully described in 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 action: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It explicitly ties the tool to feedback about Pipeworx tools, distinguishing it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or discover_tools that are for queries and discovery.

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 gives explicit when-to-use cases: bug (wrong/stale data), feature/data_gap (wish existed), and praise. It also states when not to use it (tools from other MCP servers) and directs the user to file with that server instead, naming the alternative. Guidance about using Pipeworx tool names and avoiding end-user prompts further clarifies usage.

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

All Rss2json 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools serve overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all query Pipeworx data in similar ways. Polymarket tools also heavily overlap. This leads to ambiguity for an agent trying to select the right tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are inconsistent, mixing snake_case (ai_visibility_check), all lowercase (feed, forget), and underscore-separated verbs (ask_pipeworx_grounded, list_subscriptions). No consistent pattern is followed.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools, the server feels overloaded for its stated purpose of RSS-to-JSON conversion. Many tools are unrelated (e.g., prediction markets, entity profiles, memory) making the scope too broad for a focused server.

Completeness2/5

The tool set has notable gaps: only one RSS-related tool (feed), and missing basic operations like creating or updating entities. The heavy focus on Pipeworx and Polymarket leaves the core domain underserved.

Resources