Skip to main content
Glama

Scb Se

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?

Despite annotations only providing false hints (readOnly, idempotent, destructive), the description adds substantial behavioral context: rate limiting (5 per identifier per day), free usage that doesn't count against tool-call quota, and the claim_token mechanism for retrieving resolution status. It also notes the team reads digests daily, setting expectations for response time.

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 longer than typical, but every sentence provides valuable guidance: purpose, usage triggers, exclusions, token flow, rate limits, and quota. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured logically. A slight reduction in length could improve readability, but no information is redundant.

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 feedback tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers all essential context: what to report, what not to report, how to frame issues, the claim_token lifecycle, rate limits, and next steps. It fully equips the agent to use the tool appropriately even without an output schema.

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 covers all parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantics beyond schema: explains how to use claim_token (pass alone, no other args), instructs users to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs (not end-user prompts), and clarifies that context is optional structured metadata. This enrichment justifies above 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: to tell the Pipeworx team about something broken, missing, or worth praising. It explicitly lists feedback types (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx by framing it as reporting rather than asking.

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 scenarios for each feedback type and provides a clear exclusion: do not report issues for tools from other MCP servers, with specific instruction to file with that server instead. It also explains the claim_token follow-up flow, which is actionable guidance.

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

All Scb Se 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but several overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical (only differing in verification/depth), and polymarket_edges / polymarket_arbitrage / polymarket_edge_tracker / polymarket_fill_risk / polymarket_kalshi_spread all target similar prediction-market signals, which could cause mis-selection without careful reading.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most names follow a clear verb_noun pattern (resolve_entity, query_table, remember, recall, forget, subscribe, unsubscribe, validate_claim, compare_entities, search_within), but there are exceptions like ai_visibility_check (adjective_noun), generate_llms_txt (verb_noun with dot), and several polymarket_* names that are fine but inconsistent with the snake_case verb-first convention.

Tool Count5/5

35 tools is a large but reasonable surface for a broad data/serach platform covering company financials, economics, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and discovery. The count is justified by the wide domain, and the set is not bloated with trivial duplicates.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers core CRUD for entities (resolve, profile, compare, search, query) and memory (remember/recall/forget), plus subscriptions and meta-tools. Minor gaps: no explicit tool for updating/creating entities (understandable for a read-only data service), and no tool for listing all available table schemas beyond discovery (subjects covers this). Overall strong coverage.

Resources