Skip to main content
Glama

Science Feeds

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.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false, so the description carries the full behavioral burden. It discloses rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), free usage, the claim_token round-trip, and the fact that the team reads digests daily. These go well beyond annotations and set accurate agent expectations.

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 longer than typical but every sentence adds unique information: purpose, when to use, exclusions, claim_token mechanics, rate limits, and roadmap impact. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and organized logically, so no sentence is wasted.

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 description completely covers the tool's operation: what it does, when to use it, what to include, what to expect in return (claim_token), and limitations. Since there is no output schema, the explanation of the claim_token flow is essential and provided clearly.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by giving a concrete usage example for the claim_token parameter ('pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})') and by clarifying message content ('don't paste the end-user's prompt'). This justifies a 4.

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: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It specifies feedback categories (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and distinguishes this tool from all sibling tools, which are research/feed-related.

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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data', etc.) and when not to ('if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead'). This provides clear inclusion and exclusion criteria, plus alternatives.

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

All Science Feeds 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
Disambiguation2/5

ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical in behavior), and ask_pipeworx_grounded overlap heavily, and the six-tool Polymarket cluster (edges, arbitrage, fill_risk, edge_tracker, kalshi_spread, bet_research) requires careful reading to distinguish. Descriptions are detailed, but several tools present real selection ambiguity.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly all tools use snake_case with a mostly verb-first or resource-first pattern (ask_, list_, fetch_, read_, subscribe, validate_claim). Minor deviations like entity_profile and recent_changes break the verb-noun pattern slightly, but the overall naming is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for the 'Science Feeds' name, which implies a narrow feed-reading service; only 3 tools actually relate to feeds. The rest form a broad Pipeworx grab bag (memory, npm scanning, AI visibility, prediction markets, feedback), making the set feel unfocused and overweight.

Completeness4/5

For the broad query/research domain the descriptions actually establish, coverage is strong: discovery, single lookups, grounded/refusal-safe answers, deep research, entity resolution, comparison, change feeds, claim validation, subscriptions, memory, and feedback are all present. The literal science-feed surface is thin, but the toolkit as a whole has few dead ends.

Resources