Skip to main content
Glama

stackexchange

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. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are minimal (all false), but the description discloses rate limiting (5/day), cost (free, no quota), and the claim_token lifecycle. It also explains that feedback goes to a human team reading digests daily, adding meaningful behavioral context beyond the structured 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?

Although the description is long, every sentence is information-dense and earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, followed by usage, exclusions, follow-up mechanics, and constraints, with no fluff or repetition.

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?

The description covers the main use cases, which tools it applies to, the claim_token return and reuse, rate limits, and the human workflow. Even without an output schema, it explains what a user gets back (claim_token) and how to use it later, making it complete for this tool's complexity.

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 semantic value by explaining the claim_token flow (pass it back later) and clarifying that message should describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools, not paste end-user prompts. This goes beyond the 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 opens with a specific verb phrase, 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist,' naming the resource and action. It distinguishes the tool from all sibling tools by focusing on feedback submission rather than research, visibility checks, or subscriptions.

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 gives explicit 'Use when' criteria for bug, feature, data_gap, and praise, and provides a clear exclusion for tools from other MCP servers. It also tells users how to follow up with a claim_token and notes the daily rate limit.

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

All stackexchange 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
Disambiguation2/5

The StackExchange tools are distinct, but the dominating data-lookup cluster is highly ambiguous: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical today), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route into the same underlying tool catalog. The polymorpharket tools also overlap heavily, making selection between bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and fill-risk checks genuinely hard.

Naming Consistency2/5

The names are all snake_case but otherwise follow no consistent pattern: bare verbs (remember, forget, subscribe), prefixed names (pipeworx_feedback, stack_get_user), composite domain names (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt), and generic verbs (resolve_entity, validate_claim, search_within). The StackExchange subset itself is split between stack_get_user/stack_tags and search_questions/get_answers.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is already in the 'too many' range for one server, and the mismatch with the server name is severe: only 5 of 36 tools relate to StackExchange. The rest form a broad Pipeworx/prediction-market data platform that would itself be oversized for a focused purpose.

Completeness2/5

For a StackExchange-focused server, the surface has core read operations but lacks question-detail-by-ID, comments, related questions, or any write/community actions, and the 31 unrelated tools do not fill that gap. For the broader apparent Pipeworx platform coverage is broad, but the set has no single coherent domain against which completeness can be meaningfully judged.

Resources