Skip to main content
Glama

Ship On Friday

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The description discloses rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), cost ('Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota'), the claim_token mechanism for tracking feedback, and the fact that the team reads digests daily. These details go well beyond the annotations, which are all false, and set clear expectations for the tool's behavior.

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 longer than average, but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage criteria, exclusions, claim_token flow, rate limit, and cost. It is well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose, making it efficient despite its length.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a feedback tool with no output schema, the description covers the key aspects: what it does, when to use it, how claim_token works, and limits. It could mention the exact response format, but it already tells users what to expect (claim_token, status, changes). Overall, it is complete enough for an agent to use effectively.

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

Parameters3/5

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

The input schema covers all four parameters with complete descriptions (100% coverage), so the description need not repeat them. The description does add value by clarifying claim_token usage (pass it alone with no other arguments) and advising to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, but the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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 starts with 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist,' which is a specific verb+resource and clearly states the tool's purpose. It also distinguishes itself from sibling tools by emphasizing feedback for Pipeworx tools only, 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?

The description explicitly states when to use the tool (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and when not to use it ('if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead'). It also provides criteria for identifying Pipeworx tools, making the usage guidance unambiguous.

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

All Ship On Friday 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among data query tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes. However, detailed descriptions and different use cases help an agent distinguish them, so it is mostly clear.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent lower_snake_case pattern with a verb_noun style (e.g., ask_pipeworx, list_subscriptions, validate_claim). There are no mixed conventions, making it predictable and easy to understand.

Tool Count4/5

With 31 tools, the server covers a broad domain of data queries, prediction markets, memory, and subscriptions. While slightly more than typical, each tool earns its place and the count is reasonable for the comprehensive platform scope.

Completeness5/5

The tool surface is extensive, covering data querying, analysis, entity resolution, comparison, change tracking, memory, subscriptions, and more. There are no obvious gaps; it supports a wide range of user intents for the server's purpose.

Resources