Skip to main content
Glama

Sarb Za

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false and provide no safety or behavioral hints, so the description carries full weight. It discloses the anonymous filing returns a claim_token, how to later check status, daily digest cadence, rate limit (5 per identifier per day), and that it doesn't count against quota. It also warns against pasting end-user prompts, adding context beyond what annotations/schema reveal.

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 long but every sentence earns its place. It front-loads purpose, then systematically covers use cases, exclusions, formatting guidance, and post-filing mechanics. No redundant sentences or filler; the length is justified by the tool's dual submit/check behavior.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (two modes: submit feedback, check status), the description is fully complete. It covers use cases, scope boundaries, input expectations, return behavior (claim_token), rate limits, and roadmap impact. The absence of an output schema is compensated by explaining what the token returns and how to read status.

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 already covers 100% of parameters with descriptions. The description adds operational nuance: passing claim_token alone ('with no other arguments') reads status, and message should describe issues in Pipeworx tool terms rather than pasting prompts. This elevates beyond schema but doesn't fully redefine semantics since type/context are already well-documented.

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 first sentence clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It enumerates the feedback categories (bug, feature/data_gap, praise). No sibling tool serves this role, so it is unambiguously distinct.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use triggers: returns wrong/stale data, missing tool, or positive praise. It also gives a strong exclusion: 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection' and directs users to file with other MCP servers. Additional guidance on message format and claim_token follow-up fully covers usage.

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

All Sarb Za 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping or redundant purposes, most notably ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical), and the cluster of Polymarket tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research) which all surface trading opportunities. While the lengthy descriptions help, an agent could easily select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use snake_case with a readable verb/noun structure, and there are no casing inconsistencies. However, the verb-first vs noun-first pattern is not uniformly applied (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs sarb_timeseries vs polymarket_edge_tracker), so it's mostly consistent with minor deviations.

Tool Count2/5

At 36 tools, the set is large and exceeds the 25-tool threshold; the broad scope justifies some volume but the presence of duplicate/overlapping tools (ask_pipeworx_beta, multiple Polymarket scanners) makes the count feel inflated.

Completeness4/5

The set covers a wide domain — SARB data, company research, prediction markets, AI visibility, memory, and subscriptions — with a good lifecycle for most features. Minor gaps exist (no subscription update, no bulk data export), but the core workflows are well covered.

Resources