Skip to main content
Glama

Spotify

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?

The description discloses critical behavioral details beyond the all-false annotations: the claim_token return flow, rate limiting ('5 per identifier per day'), zero quota impact, and daily team review. It also clarifies non-destructive nature implicitly (feedback only), and no contradiction with annotations exists.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then organized by use-case triggers, exclusions, token mechanics, and constraints. Every sentence adds value—no filler. Although longer than the two-sentence TDQS example, its length is justified by the tool's behavioral complexity and multi-part usage contract.

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 no output schema and four params (one nested), the description covers all crucial context: how to file, what to include, when to use alternatives, token-based follow-up, rate limits, and team SLA. Nothing important is left ambiguous.

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% and already documents all four parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds a concrete usage example for claim_token ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})') and specifies 'with no other arguments,' enriching the schema's meaning beyond basic 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 opens with a clear verb-resource statement: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It explicitly enumerates feedback types (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and distinguishes this tool from siblings by limiting scope to Pipeworx-served tools, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 provides explicit when-to-use triggers ('Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data... when a tool you wish existed isn't in the catalog... when something worked surprisingly well') and a clear exclusion: 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection... file it with that server instead.' This is model-level guidance with alternatives articulated.

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

All Spotify 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The tool set is a chaotic mix of Spotify music tools and an extensive Pipeworx data querying system, with no clear separation. Tools like 'ask_pipeworx', 'ask_pipeworx_grounded', and 'deep_research' have overlapping querying purposes, while unrelated tools from prediction markets and company research further muddy the boundaries. An agent would struggle to distinguish which tool to use for a given task.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: Spotify tools follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., 'get_album', 'search'), while Pipeworx tools use descriptive phrases (e.g., 'ask_pipeworx', 'bet_research'). Additionally, some tools have vague names like 'process' or 'run' that could apply to anything. The lack of a unified naming scheme makes the set feel disjointed.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the count is high, but the server name 'Spotify' implies a focused music service. The majority of tools are unrelated to Spotify (e.g., Pipeworx queries, Polymarket bets, dependency scanning), making the tool count feel inflated and inappropriate for the stated domain. A more focused set would be far more coherent.

Completeness1/5

If this is a Spotify server, it is severely incomplete: it lacks playlist management, user actions, and recommendation features beyond top tracks. The inclusion of dozens of unrelated tools (financial data, prediction markets, package analysis) suggests the server has no clear purpose, leaving it neither complete for Spotify nor for any other single domain.

Resources