Skip to main content
Glama

Smithsonian

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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed2 schema fields changed
    • addedInput schema / properties / claim_token
      Added value: +{
+  "description": "Read 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.",
+  "type": "string"
+}
    • removedInput schema / required
      Removed value: -[
-  "type",
-  "message"
-]
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite annotations being all false (not read-only, not idempotent, not destructive), the description goes beyond them by revealing rate limiting ('5 per identifier per day'), quota implications ('Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota'), and the two-phase behavior via claim_token. It sets clear expectations about side effects and the read-back mechanism.

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 lengthy but every sentence carries unique information: usage categories, server boundary, claim_token lifecycle, rate limits, quota, and roadmap impact. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured logically, with no 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?

Given a 4-parameter schema with nested objects and no output schema, the description fully covers the return value (claim_token) and how to consume it. It also handles edge cases (different MCP servers, unsure about tool names) and explains the feedback lifecycle, making it highly complete.

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 extra value by advising users not to paste the end-user's prompt and to describe issues in Pipeworx tool terms. It also clarifies that claim_token should be used with no other arguments, reinforcing schema info without redundancy.

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 enumerates the feedback categories and explicitly distinguishes from other MCP servers, which differentiates it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or deep_research.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and when-not-to-use (different MCP server), plus an alternative ('file it with that server instead'). It also explains the claim_token flow and rate limits, leaving no ambiguity about the intended use.

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

All Smithsonian 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
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools serve overlapping purposes, such as the three ask_pipeworx variants (stable, beta, grounded) and the six Polymarket-specific tools. While detailed descriptions help distinguish them, an agent could still confuse bet_research with polymarket_edges or the ask_pipeworx versions.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is highly inconsistent: verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), noun_noun (bet_research, entity_profile), single verbs (forget, recall, search), and adjective_noun (recent_alerts, deep_research). No clear pattern emerges across the set.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is on the high side for a server named 'Smithsonian' that actually covers a broad range of data sources (SEC, FDA, Polymarket, npm, etc.). The number feels borderline heavy but is still manageable if the server's true purpose is general research.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers multiple domains (company financials, drugs, economics, prediction markets, npm, museum data) with reasonable depth. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of PyPI scanning or missing update/delete operations for some memory features, but core workflows are well-supported.

Resources