Skip to main content
Glama

Send That Email

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 and uninformative, so the description carries the full burden. It richly discloses non-obvious behaviors: a 5-per-identifier daily rate limit, no quota cost, the claim_token return-and-check workflow, and daily team review cycles. Nothing in the description contradicts the 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?

The description is longer than average, but every sentence earns its place by adding scoping, behavioral, or operational value. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then proceeds to usage constraints and workflow details, with no redundant filler.

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 lacking an output schema, the description clearly states what a call returns (claim_token) and how to use it later. It covers alternatives, scope, parameter guidance, rate limits, token workflow, and post-submission expectations, making the tool fully self-contained for an agent.

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?

With schema description coverage at 100%, the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful usage semantics beyond the schema. It instructs users to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs rather than pasting end-user prompts, and it explains that filing without an account yields a claim_token for later status retrieval. These operational details enhance 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 opens with a clear verb and object ('Tell the Pipeworx team') and enumerates the exact feedback categories (bug, feature/data_gap, praise). It also explicitly scopes the tool to Pipeworx connection tools, distinguishing it sharply from the many sibling research and market tools.

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 provides precise when-to-use scenarios (wrong/stale data, missing tool, unexpected success) and an explicit exclusion: feedback about tools from other MCP servers should be filed with that server instead. This makes the decision boundary unambiguous, including a fallback heuristic ('Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists').

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

All Send That Email 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer queries with subtly different guarantees. The Polymarket family (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread, polymarket_edge_tracker) also has fuzzy boundaries. Despite detailed descriptions, an agent could easily pick the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: there are verb_noun names (discover_tools, resolve_entity), noun-based names (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending), single verbs (remember, recall, forget), and odd constructions like send_that_email_analyze. No clear pattern dominates, making it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is heavy for a focused server, and most tools are unrelated to the server's apparent email-sending purpose. The count feels bloated and the scope mismatched, though it is not extreme enough for a 1.

Completeness1/5

Given the server name 'Send That Email', the tool surface is severely incomplete: there is only an email analysis tool and no actual sending, drafting, or mailbox management. The bulk of the tools address data lookup and research, leaving the core email workflow entirely unimplemented.

Resources