Skip to main content
Glama

The Committee

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

All annotations are false, so the description carries the full transparency burden. It discloses rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), the anonymous claim_token flow, quota impact ('Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota'), and scope restrictions. This goes far beyond what structured annotations offer.

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 relatively long but every sentence delivers operational value: scope, when-to-use, content guidance, claim_token flow, rate limit, quota, and roadmap impact. It is front-loaded with the purpose and flows logically, so the length is justified.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains the primary return behavior (claim_token) and the follow-up read path. It covers prerequisites (none, works without account), constraints (rate limit, cross-server exclusion), and outcome (team reads digests, roadmap impact). Highly complete for a feedback tool.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description adds meaningful semantics: it maps the 'type' enum to concrete scenarios, provides a usage example for claim_token (`pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})`), and adds content constraints like 'don't paste the end-user's prompt' for message. This enriches parameter understanding beyond 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 specific verb+resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It enumerates feedback categories (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and clearly distinguishes this tool from sibling research/query tools by being the only feedback mechanism.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: '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: 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection… file it with that server instead.' This is exemplary.

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

All The Committee 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
Disambiguation3/5

The ask_pipeworx family creates real ambiguity: ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly states it currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly, leaving an agent no principled way to choose between them. discover_tools and suggest_questions also overlap as meta-tools for navigating the catalog, though the remaining tools (five polymarket_* tools, entity tools, subscription lifecycle) are well-delineated by their detailed cross-referenced descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set is uniformly snake_case with coherent subfamilies (ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, remember/recall/forget), but it mixes imperative verb_phrase names (validate_claim, resolve_entity, generate_llms_txt) with noun_phrase names (entity_profile, recent_changes, ai_visibility_check), and the_committee_convene breaks the pattern entirely with a full-sentence name. The inconsistency is stylistic rather than chaotic, so it stays readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 32 tools, the set exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many' and the breadth is not fully earned: ask_pipeworx_beta is self-admittedly redundant right now, and several tools feel bolted on from unrelated domains (the_committee_convene, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, ai_visibility_check). The core data-research and prediction-market scope would be tighter and more navigable at roughly 20-24 tools.

Completeness4/5

The primary domain — authoritative data lookup, entity research, and prediction-market analysis — is covered with no dead ends: query (ask_pipeworx, grounded, deep_research), profile (resolve_entity, entity_profile, compare_entities), track (recent_changes), verify (validate_claim), bet research (bet_research, polymarket_edges, arbitrage, fill_risk, kalshi_spread), subscriptions (subscribe/unsubscribe/list/recent_alerts), and memory (remember/recall/forget) form complete lifecycles. Minor gaps exist only at the periphery: no execution layer for prediction-market trades (research stops at fill-risk advice) and single-tool coverage for the npm/llms.txt/AI-visibility side-domains.

Resources