Skip to main content
Glama

Sgd

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, providing no safety or side-effect insight, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses rate limiting ('5 per identifier per day'), the claim_token flow for anonymous filing, that it's free and doesn't count against quota, and that the team reads digests daily — all meaningful behavioral context beyond structured fields.

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 longer than typical descriptions, every sentence adds necessary guidance: when to use, scope exclusions, message crafting, token mechanics, and rate limits. The structure flows logically from purpose to usage to follow-up, and the 'Not sure?' line proactively addresses ambiguity.

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?

The tool has no output schema and all parameters optional, so the description must explain the full contract. It covers return behavior (claim_token), how to check resolution status, rate limiting, and scope boundaries, making it fully usable without guessing. This is unusually complete given the tool's nuance.

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 baseline is 3, but the description adds value by explaining how to frame the message ('don't paste the end-user's prompt') and by demonstrating the claim_token usage ('pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})'). This goes beyond the schema's terse parameter 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 opens with a specific verb and resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly delineates this from sibling tools by framing it as feedback rather than a query or research tool, and further clarifies scope by restricting to tools served by this Pipeworx connection.

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 states when to use: for bugs, feature/data gaps, or praise, with concrete examples like 'wrong/stale data (bug)'. It also gives a clear exclusion rule: don't report issues from other MCP servers, and helps disambiguate by telling the agent to check Pipeworx tool names in the connection list.

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

All Sgd 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical today), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route factual questions through similar pipelines. The polymarket_* cluster also blurs together, with arbitrage, edges, fill_risk, kalshi_spread, and bet_research all analyzing prediction-market mispricings from different angles.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use consistent snake_case, but the verb/noun pattern is mixed: some are verb-first (compare_entities, generate_llms_txt, validate_claim), others noun-first (polymarket_edges, entity_profile, ai_visibility_check), and some are bare product names (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_trending). Readable overall, but no single predictable convention.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is far too many for a coherent server, especially since the server is named 'Sgd' but only 3 tools relate to yeast genetics. The remaining 31 tools span data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, npm scanning, and llms.txt generation—an unfocused grab bag that should be split into multiple servers.

Completeness2/5

As an SGD yeast-genome server, the surface is thin: search, get_gene, and get_gene_go cover basic lookup but miss sequences, interactions, strains, homologs, and other standard SGD data. As a general data utility, the collection is broad but incoherent, with several one-off tools (generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency) that have no connection to the rest.

Resources