Skip to main content
Glama

Stripe_connect

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 provide no safety hints (readOnlyHint, destructiveHint all false), so description carries the burden. It discloses the rate limit (5 per identifier per day), that it's free and doesn't count against quota, the claim_token workflow for follow-up, and that the team reads digests daily. This gives agents a clear model of side effects and usage constraints.

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 long but every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then exclusions, then usage mechanics and constraints. No filler or redundancy; the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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's complexity (4 optional params, nested object, no output schema), the description is complete. It explains the return token and how to use it later, defines feedback categories, and provides clear guidance on scope and content. Agents have enough information to invoke it correctly without further documentation.

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% (every parameter has a description), so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond schema by explaining how to use claim_token across calls (pass it back with no other args to read status) and what to avoid in message (don't paste end-user prompt). This raises it to 4.

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 explicitly maps to feedback categories (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and is distinct from sibling tools which are research or Stripe operations. The verb 'Tell' and resource 'Pipeworx Feedback' are specific.

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 when-to-use guidance (tool returns wrong data, missing tool, praise) and when-not-to-use guidance (if the tool came from a different MCP server, file with that server instead). It also tells how to scope feedback to Pipeworx tools/packs, which is actionable and clear.

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

All Stripe_connect 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set has several near-duplicate entry points: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, while ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research and bet_research/polymarket_edges overlap heavily. Verbose descriptions help in isolation, but an agent must choose between many similar-looking research and prediction-market tools before it can act.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes bare verbs (remember, forget, subscribe), prefixed families (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, stripe_*), and descriptive noun-style names (entity_profile, validate_claim) with no single verb_noun pattern. Each cluster is internally consistent, but the overall set is unpredictable.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is excessive for a server named Stripe_connect, especially since only 6 tools are actually Stripe-related and the rest are a sprawling Pipeworx data-research and prediction-market stack. The count would be heavy even for the broad research domain, and it is a serious scope mismatch for the stated name.

Completeness1/5

For the Stripe domain implied by the server name, the surface is severely incomplete: it is read-only (get/list) with no way to create customers, take payments, issue refunds, update invoices, or manage subscription lifecycles. The non-Stripe research tools are broad, but that does not fill the payment workflow gap.

Resources