Skip to main content
Glama

spacenews

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false and provide no hints, but the description discloses key behaviors: returns a claim_token without an account, rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free, doesn't count against quota, and the team reads digests daily. No contradiction with 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?

Every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage scenarios, exclusion, token mechanics, rate limit, and quota. The description is front-loaded with the core purpose and then follows a logical flow with zero redundancy.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description adequately explains the key return behavior (claim_token) and operational constraints. The only minor gap is it doesn't explicitly describe the return value for account-holders, but the overall guidance is sufficient for correct tool invocation.

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% with detailed per-parameter descriptions. The description adds meaningful extra semantics, especially for claim_token ('Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later...') and for message framing ('don't paste the end-user's prompt'). This exceeds the baseline 3 for full schema coverage.

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 opening sentence clearly states the verb+resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It distinguishes this from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or discover_tools by framing it as feedback/issue reporting for Pipeworx tools specifically.

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 enumerates when to use (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and when NOT to use (tools from a different MCP server, with clear instructions to file elsewhere). It also clarifies uncertainty by pointing to the tool names listed by this connection.

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

All spacenews 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
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research. While each has distinct nuances, they could be confused by an agent.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case, but the naming pattern is inconsistent (e.g., bet_research vs. polymarket_arbitrage vs. ai_visibility_check). There is no strong verb_noun pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is high given the server's stated purpose ('spacenews'). Only a few tools directly relate to space news; the bulk are general-purpose Pipeworx utilities, making the scope too broad.

Completeness2/5

For a space news server, the tool surface is incomplete: only get_articles, get_blogs, and search_articles are relevant. Missing tools for article details, source filtering, or categories. The extensive general tools don't make up for this gap.

Resources