Skip to main content
Glama

Spain Tenders

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false, offering no safety or side-effect hints, so the description carries full burden. It discloses rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), cost ('Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota'), and the token flow ('Filing without an account returns a `claim_token`; pass it back later... to read whether it was fixed'). It also reveals team reading cadence and roadmap impact, which goes beyond the schema.

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 long but every sentence adds value: purpose, use cases, exclusions, disambiguation, token flow, rate limits, and cost. It is front-loaded with the primary purpose. The only minor redundancy is repeating the 'only Pipeworx tools' exclusion in two sentences, but this emphasis is justified to prevent misuse. Overall, it is dense and structured.

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 feedback tool with 4 parameters, nested context object, no output schema, and unhelpful annotations, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers use cases, exclusions, token-based status lookup, rate limits, quota impact, and roadmap influence. An agent can fully decide when to use it and how to invoke it correctly without additional information.

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 meaningful semantics beyond the schema, especially for claim_token: it explains how to obtain it and how to use it as a standalone call ('pass the pwfb_… token that filing returned, with no other arguments'). It also clarifies the intended use of type and context, reinforcing but not merely repeating schema 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It names the target (Pipeworx team) and the specific actions (bug, feature, data_gap, praise). This distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or discover_tools, which are for asking questions or exploring capabilities.

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 provides explicit when-to-use guidance: '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).' It also offers an explicit exclusion: 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection — if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead.' This is exemplary.

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

All Spain Tenders 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical routers (the beta currently matches stable exactly), and the Polymarket tools all circle around edge/arbitrage detection with fuzzy boundaries. The Spain tender tools and utility tools are distinct, but the overlapping clusters are enough to cause misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are uniformly snake_case and some families share clear prefixes (es_tender_*, ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*). However, conventions are mixed: verb-led names like compare_entities and subscribe sit alongside noun phrases like entity_profile and bet_research, so there is no consistent verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is already in the heavy range, but the bigger problem is scope: a server named 'Spain Tenders' ships 34 tools, only 3 of which are actually Spanish-procurement tools. The rest are a broad Pipeworx/Polymarket/utility toolkit, making the count inappropriate for the declared purpose.

Completeness3/5

The three es_tender_* tools cover the core discovery workflows: keyword search, recent notices, and status filtering with budgets, deadlines, and URLs. Notable gaps remain, though: no tender detail-by-id tool, no tender-specific subscription/alerting, and no explicit region, CPV, or date-range filters.

Resources