Skip to main content
Glama

Sistat Si

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 goes far beyond annotations by explaining the two-step claim_token mechanism, that filing returns a token for later status checks, rate limits (5/day), no tool-call quota, and that feedback signals directly affect roadmap. This is exactly the kind of behavioral context annotations don't capture.

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 typical but every sentence earns its place: purpose, six usage categories, exclusion, account behavior, token mechanics, rate limit, quota, and roadmap impact. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose and flows logically without redundancy.

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?

For a tool with 4 parameters, no output schema, and all-false annotations, the description covers purpose, use cases, exclusions, token-based follow-up, rate limits, and content guidance. It is complete enough for an agent to decide and invoke correctly, including the non-obvious claim_token lookup workflow.

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 lifecycle ('Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later...'), and by warning not to paste the end-user's prompt, which clarifies how to fill the message and context parameters. It doesn't fully re-explain every field, but the added workflow context raises it above baseline.

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, specific purpose: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It enumerates concrete feedback categories (bug, feature/data_gap, praise), and the title/sibling context make it unmistakable from other Pipeworx 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use criteria for each feedback type, and equally explicit when-not-to-use guidance: it names the exclusion for tools from other MCP servers and tells users to file elsewhere. Also gives a fallback disambiguation ('Not sure? 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 Sistat Si 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap among ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, as well as between discover_tools and suggest_questions. However, detailed descriptions help differentiate them.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are highly inconsistent, mixing snake_case (ask_pipeworx, forget), camelCase (discoverTools, suggestQuestions), and underscores (ai_visibility_check, compare_entities). No predictable pattern.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is on the high side, but the broad domain (finance, pharma, prediction markets, etc.) partly justifies it. However, some tools like forget, remember, recall seem generic and could be separated.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a wide range of functionalities: visibility checks, pipeworx queries, entity profiles, comparisons, subscriptions, memory, and more. Minor gaps may exist in real-time data or specific niche sources.

Resources