Skip to main content
Glama

Speedrun

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, so the description carries the behavioral burden. It discloses rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), the claim_token follow-up mechanism, that it's free and doesn't count against quota, and that team reads digests daily. This goes well beyond the sparse annotations.

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 a dense single paragraph, but every sentence contributes: purpose, use cases, exclusion, mechanics, rate limits, and impact. A slight structural improvement (breaking into bullets) would help, but it is front-loaded and free of fluff.

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 the tool has 4 params including a nested object, an optional claim_token flow, and no output schema, the description is highly complete. It explains the token lifecycle (obtain, use later to check status), the types of feedback, and the constraints. It covers everything an agent needs to invoke and follow up correctly.

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%, providing baseline 3. The description adds value by explaining the claim_token usage pattern ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:...}) to read whether it was fixed') and clarifies that filing without an account returns a token, which is not fully explicit in the schema. It also gives typical message length ('1-2 sentences typical').

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 with a specific verb and resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It distinguishes this tool from siblings by being the dedicated feedback channel, with explicit use cases (bug, feature, data_gap, praise).

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 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 gives a clear exclusion: tools from other MCP servers should be filed elsewhere, and clarifies how to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs.

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

All Speedrun 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap in data querying tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, entity_profile, etc.) and prediction market tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc.). Detailed descriptions help differentiate them, but the number of similar-sounding tools increases the chance of misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names show mixed conventions: some use verb_noun (e.g., find_user, list_subscriptions), others are noun_verb (e.g., entity_profile, bet_research), and there are prefixes like polymarket_ and pipeworx_. While subgroups are internally consistent, the overall set lacks a unified pattern.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools spanning speedrun.com queries, Pipeworx data access, memory management, subscriptions, and prediction markets, the server bundles multiple domains. The scope is too broad for a coherent single server; splitting into separate servers would improve usability.

Completeness4/5

Within each domain (speedrun.com, Pipeworx, Polymarket), the tool set covers key operations comprehensively, including research, arbitrage, fill risk, and monitoring. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool to place bets), but the overall surface is well-covered for the advertised functionalities.

Resources