Skip to main content
Glama

Sec Regulations

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 minimal (four false hints), so the description carries the burden and does it thoroughly. It discloses that filing without an account returns a claim_token for later lookup, that the team reads digests daily, that feedback affects roadmap, that it is rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, and that it is free and doesn't count against quota. This goes beyond annotations and provides meaningful behavioral context.

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 the core purpose and flows logically through when-to-use, exclusions, workflow, and constraints. It is denser than typical but every sentence adds value. Slight deduction for length and the parenthetical aside about tool names being the ones listed by the connection, which could be more concise.

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?

This is a feedback submission tool with no output schema, so the description must fully explain behavior and outcomes. It covers what happens on filing (claim_token), how to check resolution, team response cadence, rate limits, and quota effects. For a tool with 4 parameters and no required fields, this description fully prepares an agent to use it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds significant value beyond the schema. It explains the exact semantics of claim_token usage (pass pwfb_… with no other arguments to check status), describes message content expectations (be specific, 1-2 sentences, 2000 chars max), and clarifies the type enum values. This substantially enriches the parameter understanding.

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: sending feedback to the Pipeworx team about broken, missing, or needed functionality. It specifies distinct feedback types (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and explicitly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing it is ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection, not other MCP servers.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: use for bugs, feature requests, data gaps, or praise. Clearly states when NOT to use it (for tools from other MCP servers) and directs users to file with that server instead. Also describes the workflow for claiming and checking feedback status via claim_token, plus rate limits and quota info.

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

All Sec Regulations 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have nearly identical purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges both scan for betting opportunities, and ai_visibility_check overlaps with scan_competitor_ai_presence. The long descriptions help, but an agent must read carefully to distinguish the meta-routers (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions) from each other.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority use lowercase snake_case with a verb-first or domain-prefixed noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, sec_regulations_search, polymarket_edges). Minor deviations like entity_profile, recent_alerts, and ai_visibility_check are noun-first, and sec_regulation vs sec_regulations_search is slightly inconsistent, but the overall style is predictable.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools this exceeds the 25-tool threshold for 'too many', and most are unrelated to the server's stated name 'Sec Regulations'—only sec_regulation and sec_regulations_search fit that label. While each tool has a defined purpose, the set feels like several distinct servers (research, betting, memory, subscriptions) crammed into one.

Completeness3/5

For a general data-research platform, the surface is broad: Q&A routers, entity resolution/profiles, comparisons, validation, memory, subscriptions, and domain-specific tools. But the SEC-regulation focus implied by the server name is severely under-served, and there's no direct tool to fetch a raw document by citation/URI outside of the ask_pipeworx router. The Polymarket cluster is over-built relative to other data domains.

Resources