Skip to main content
Glama

Sciencebase

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description reveals the claim_token return-and-follow-up mechanism, rate limit of 5 per identifier per day, and that it's free without counting against quota. It also explains that team reads digests daily and signal affects roadmap, adding meaningful context about consequences of using the tool.

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 front-loaded with purpose and each sentence provides meaningful detail (scope, exclusions, behavior, limits). It is longer than average but not padded; minor extras like roadmap impact could be considered non-essential, yet they don't significantly detract from readability.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema exists, so the description carries the burden of explaining return behavior. It sufficiently covers the claim_token flow, rate limits, and content guidelines, but doesn't detail the exact response structure or behavior with an account. Still complete enough for correct invocation.

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 all parameters with 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining claim_token usage ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:...})') and directs users not to paste the end-user prompt, enriching message semantics beyond schema descriptions.

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 as telling the Pipeworx team about broken/missing/needed things, explicitly listing categories (bug, feature, data_gap, praise). It distinguishes from siblings by emphasizing it's strictly for tools served by this Pipeworx connection, while sibling tools like ask_pipeworx are for querying.

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?

Explicitly specifies when to use (wrong/stale data, missing tool, praise) and provides a strong exclusion: 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection' and directs to file with the other server if it came from a different MCP server. Also offers a heuristic for identifying Pipeworx tools and guidance on message content.

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

All Sciencebase 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinctly described purposes, but there is some overlap among query tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim, which could cause confusion for an agent.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are consistently snake_case but vary in pattern: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), while others are noun_noun (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage) or longer phrases (scan_competitor_ai_presence), making the naming system inconsistent.

Tool Count2/5

With 33 tools, the server feels over-scoped. Many tools are niche (e.g., polymarket-specific ones) and the high number exceeds the typical range for a focused server, leading to potential overwhelm.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a broad range of query and monitoring tasks for its domains, but lacks write operations (except memory tools). There are notable gaps like no tool for creating or editing ScienceBase items, which seems incomplete given the server's name.

Resources