Skip to main content
Glama

The Guardian

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
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only give four negative hints (not read-only, not idempotent, etc.), so description carries the burden. It discloses the claim_token workflow, rate limit (5/day), that it's free, and that digests are read daily — all beyond what annotations provide. A 4 is fair because it doesn't explicitly state that filing creates a persistent record, though that is strongly implied.

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 long, every sentence earns its place: purpose, use cases, exclusion condition, content guidelines, claim_token flow, and rate limit. The structure front-loads the core action and then progressively narrows to operational details — no redundancy, no fluff.

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?

No output schema, but the description explains return behavior (claim_token, later status read). It covers all operational aspects: when to use, what to include, what not to include, rate limiting, and cross-server handling. For a feedback tool, this is fully specified.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds workflow context for claim_token (how to use it to read the reply later) and message guidance ('don't paste the end-user's prompt', 'describe in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs') that enriches parameter usage beyond the schema definitions.

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?

Description opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' This clearly distinguishes the feedback tool from sibling research/search tools, and the scope ('Pipeworx tools/packs') is unambiguous.

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 criteria for each feedback type (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and an explicit exclusion: tools from other MCP servers should be filed elsewhere. Even gives a decision rule for uncertainty ('Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists'). This is textbook usage guidance.

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

All The Guardian 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes and similar names, especially the Pipeworx query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and the Polymarket tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, etc.). The Guardian-specific tools are distinct but are outnumbered by these confusing clusters, making it hard for an agent to reliably select the right tool.

Naming Consistency1/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern: some are snake_case (ai_visibility_check, ask_pipeworx), some are verbs without objects (item, tags, forget, recall), and some are inconsistent in style (compare_entities vs. bet_research). There is no unifying naming convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the server is bloated for its implied purpose ('The Guardian' suggests a focused news outlet). Many tools belong to unrelated domains (Pipeworx data platform, Polymarket prediction markets), making the count feel excessive and unfocused. A news-specific server should have far fewer tools.

Completeness1/5

The tool set lacks a coherent domain. The Guardian news tools are complete (search, item, sections, etc.), but the massive inclusion of Pipeworx and Polymarket tools creates dead ends and gaps (e.g., no direct tool to list all prediction markets or search patents). The surface feels like a random collection rather than a designed whole.

Resources