Skip to main content
Glama

Sec Form D

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, so the description carries full burden. It discloses rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), cost ('Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota'), account behavior ('Filing without an account returns a claim_token'), token lifecycle, and team response cadence. No contradiction with annotations.

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?

Though a single dense paragraph, every sentence earns its place. It front-loads the core action, then flows naturally through usage, exclusions, mechanics, and limits. No filler or repetition; the length is justified by the richness of needed guidance.

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 simple feedback tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential contexts: what to report, what not to report, how to follow up, rate limits, and cost. It is fully self-contained and leaves no major ambiguity for an agent deciding when and how to invoke it.

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 coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema: it explains how claim_token works ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"}) to read whether it was fixed'), and clarifies type values. It doesn't need to restate every param, but the token lifecycle guidance adds genuine value.

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 specific verb+resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly distinguishes this from sibling tools (ask_pipeworx, discover_tools) by focusing on feedback to the team rather than querying data or discovering capabilities.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is given: '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).' It also provides a clear exclusion: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead,' naming the alternative action.

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

All Sec Form D 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

Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded all route questions to data sources with minor differences. Form D tools and meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions) further blur boundaries, making it hard for an agent to select the right tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., resolve_entity, validate_claim, subscribe). However, there are minor deviations like bet_research and deep_research without clear verbs, and the ask_pipeworx variants use irregular suffixes.

Tool Count2/5

With 39 tools, the server is over-scoped, including many utility and meta-tools (remember, recall, forget, list_subscriptions) that inflate the count beyond the core domain (SEC Form D and data lookups). A more focused set of 10-15 tools would be more coherent.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a very broad range of data sources and actions, including SEC filings, prediction markets, entity profiling, and AI visibility. However, the completeness is uneven; for example, there are many Form D tools but few for other SEC forms, and some areas like weather or clinical trials are only accessible via ask_pipeworx.

Resources