Skip to main content
Glama

Statec Lu

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false and provide no useful behavioral hints, so the description carries the full burden. It thoroughly discloses rate limiting (5/day), free/quota behavior, the claim_token workflow for following up, and roadmap impact. This is far beyond what structured annotations convey, with no contradiction.

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 front-loaded with a clear purpose sentence and logically organized: categories, exclusions, message guidance, token mechanics, and limits. Every sentence earns its place; minor redundancy exists between the title and first sentence, but overall it is efficient for the operational detail provided.

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?

Given no output schema, the description adequately explains the primary return behavior (claim_token) and operational constraints. It covers scope, rate limits, and follow-up. An explicit statement of what a normal submission returns (beyond the token) would make it fully complete, but current detail is strong.

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 value by explaining the claim_token round-trip ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})') and emphasizing message quality ('don't paste the end-user's prompt'), which the schema does not capture. It doesn't add much to pack/tool/vertical semantics, but those are adequately documented in the schema.

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 concrete action, 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist,' and enumerates exact feedback categories (bug, feature, data_gap, praise). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx by scoping feedback exclusively to Pipeworx tools.

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 trigger conditions per category ('Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data...') and an explicit exclusion: 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection... file it with that server instead.' It also advises how to phrase feedback, making when-to-use and when-not-to-use crystal clear.

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

All Statec Lu 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
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have blurry boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical (beta is explicitly 'exactly' the stable version), and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence is a single-vs-batch duplicate. The six polymarket_* tools are differentiated by long descriptions, but their overlapping concerns (edges, arbitrage, fill risk, spread) would frequently misroute an agent, and discover_tools vs suggest_questions also compete.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names follow two coexisting conventions: verb_noun for actions (get_data, resolve_entity, validate_claim) and domain-prefixed families (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, ask_pipeworx_*). Within each family the pattern is consistent, but mixing the two styles across the set, plus outliers like generate_llms_txt and bare verbs (remember, forget, recall), makes the overall scheme feel uneven though still readable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well past the 'heavy' threshold and the count is not justified by the server's stated identity: a server named 'Statec Lu' (Luxembourg statistics) contains only 3 STATEC tools buried among general data-platform, prediction-market, AI-visibility, npm-scanning, and memory utilities. The sprawling, multi-domain surface would be more coherent split into separate servers.

Completeness3/5

The STATEC subset is complete (list_dataflows → dataflow_structure → get_data forms a full browse/fetch lifecycle), and the broader research surface covers entity resolution, grounded answers, comparison, claim verification, and subscription/alert/memory management. However, the overall domain is incoherent—a STATEC server missing nothing for statistics but carrying 31 unrelated tools—and there are notable gaps such as no tool to directly fetch a pipeworx:// citation URI and no execution side for the extensive Polymarket analysis tools.

Resources