Skip to main content
Glama

swisstransport

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?

Beyond the generic annotations, the description discloses significant behavioral traits: the claim_token mechanism for later retrieval, a daily rate limit of 5 per identifier, that it is free and doesn't count against quota, and how the team processes feedback ('reads digests daily and signal directly affects roadmap'). These are valuable operational details that go well beyond the 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?

Though the description is lengthy, every sentence earns its place and there is no fluff. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then methodically covers use cases, exclusions, mechanisms, and operational notes, making it both comprehensive and well-structured.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description adequately explains what filing returns (a claim_token) and how to later check status. It also covers rate limits, excluded scopes, and response handling, ensuring the agent has sufficient context to invoke this tool correctly without needing additional 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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the claim_token usage ('pass the pwfb_… token that filing returned, with no other arguments') and by advising not to paste the end-user's prompt, which clarifies message content. This nuanced guidance warrants an above-baseline score.

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 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist,' which clearly identifies the verb (tell), resource (Pipeworx team), and purpose. It also distinguishes this from sibling tools by explicitly limiting it to Pipeworx tools and contrasting with other MCP servers, so it is clear how to separate it from similar feedback avenues.

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 provides explicit when-to-use conditions: '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 for other MCP servers and a 'Not sure?' heuristic to disambiguate, which is excellent guidance.

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

All swisstransport 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct names and purposes, but the ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) creates ambiguity as they serve overlapping needs with slight variations. Additionally, the transport tools (get_connections, get_stationboard, search_stations) are clearly distinct from the rest, but the overall set mixes domains, making it harder for an agent to know which tool to pick.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use snake_case, but there is no consistent pattern: some start with verbs (get_, list_, search_, remember, forget), some with nouns (entity_profile, recent_changes, recent_alerts), and others with adjectives (ai_visibility_check, deep_research). This inconsistency, while not chaotic, makes the set less predictable.

Tool Count1/5

The server name 'swisstransport' implies a narrow Swiss transport focus, but with 34 tools, only 3 are transport-related. The count is vastly inappropriate for the suggested purpose. Even considering the actual broad domain (data query, prediction markets, memory), 34 tools is on the high side and likely overwhelming for any single server.

Completeness4/5

Inferring the domain from the tool descriptions, the set covers a wide range of capabilities: data query (ask_pipeworx, deep_research), entity comparison (compare_entities), prediction markets (polymarket_*), memory (remember/recall), subscriptions, and more. There are few obvious gaps given the scope; for example, broader financial data is accessible through ask_pipeworx. The transport subset is minimal but present.

Resources