Skip to main content
Glama

Securitytrails

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?

The description adds rich behavioral context beyond annotations: rate limiting (5/day), the claim_token flow for anonymous tracking, that the team reads digests daily, and that it's free and doesn't consume quota. These details are not visible in annotations or schema and help the agent predict side effects and constraints.

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?

Although long, every sentence contributes meaningful guidance: purpose, use cases, exclusions, mechanics, and limits. It is front-loaded with the primary action, and the additional details (rate limit, token behavior) are placed where they naturally extend the workflow without padding.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description covers the essential workflow: how to file, what happens anonymously (claim_token), how to follow up, and behavioral constraints. The nested context object is described sufficiently through schema, and the description ties all pieces together for a complete understanding.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the claim_token round-trip workflow and advising users to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs rather than pasting end-user prompts, which supplements the schema definitions with usage nuance.

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 feedback channel from sibling tools by scoping it to Pipeworx-served tools and explicitly contrasting with 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 for each category (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and a clear exclusion: tools from other MCP servers should be filed elsewhere. It even tells users how to disambiguate ('Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists'), going beyond simple context.

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

All Securitytrails 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

Multiple tools occupy the same general query/research space: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, entity_profile, and recent_changes all overlap in what they can return. The descriptions are detailed and try to steer usage, but the boundaries are fuzzy enough that agents can easily select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and descriptive, but there is no consistent verb_noun convention across the set. It mixes bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes), domain-prefixed families (securitytrails_*, polymarket_*), and Pipeworx meta-tools (ask_pipeworx_*), so the pattern is predictable only within each family.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is above the 25+ threshold for a coherent MCP surface, and many are highly specialized (Polymarket arbitrage, AI visibility checks, npm dependency scans) rather than core Securitytrails functionality. The set feels like multiple products merged into one rather than a well-scoped toolset.

Completeness3/5

The broad data-research workflows are well covered: routing, entity resolution, profiling, comparison, validation, subscriptions, memory, and basic Securitytrails domain lookups. But for a server named Securitytrails, there are obvious missing security-intelligence operations such as associated domains, IP/certificate enrichment, and broader DNS infrastructure enumeration.

Resources