Skip to main content
Glama

Schemastore

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?

All annotations are false, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses the claim_token return mechanism, rate limits, daily digest review, no quota impact, and the ability to later query status with the token. These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond what annotations could convey, with no contradictions.

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 average (about 9 sentences), but every sentence contributes distinct information: purpose, when to use, exclusions, token flow, digests, rate limits, and cost. It is well-structured and front-loaded, though slightly verbose; a tighter wording could achieve the same clarity.

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 no output schema but a nested parameter object, the description fully covers the decision-making context: when to file, how to frame the message, the claim_token workflow, and operational constraints. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and reason about post-call behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, meeting the baseline of 3. The description adds important semantics not in the schema: claim_token must be passed 'with no other arguments' and the flow for reusing a returned token. Message length and specificity guidance also supplement 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 verb+resource ('Tell the Pipeworx team...'), then enumerates concrete use cases (bug, feature, data_gap, praise). It explicitly restricts scope to Pipeworx-served tools, distinguishing it from all sibling research, search, and subscription tools.

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 explicitly states when to use the tool (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and gives a clear exclusion: do not report issues with other MCP servers' tools, file with that server instead. It even helps disambiguate whether a tool belongs to Pipeworx, providing strong guidance for agent decision-making.

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

All Schemastore 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools occupy overlapping semantic space: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical), and ask_pipeworx_grounded are the same router in different modes, while suggest_questions and discover_tools both serve capability discovery. The detailed descriptions help, but an agent could easily select the wrong entry point, especially among the prediction-market and router variants.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use lowercase snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (fetch_schema, resolve_entity, validate_claim), with some domain-prefixed nouns (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending) and a few adjective_noun outliers (recent_alerts, recent_changes). The convention is consistent and predictable, with only minor deviations.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, the set is far too large for a server named Schemastore — only four tools relate to the schema catalog while the rest form a sprawling data-research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription platform. The count is heavy and the scope feels unfocused.

Completeness3/5

The broad data-research and prediction-market domain is well covered — lookup, compare, validate, research, arbitrage, subscriptions, and memory all have lifecycle support — but the server's namesake purpose (schema catalog) is thinly served by four read-only tools with no way to contribute or manage schemas. The domain mismatch makes the surface feel both over- and under-complete.

Resources