Skip to main content
Glama

Thegamesdb

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With all annotations false (no readOnly, destructive, etc.), the description carries the full burden and delivers. It discloses the claim_token return/flow, rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), free usage, and that the team reads digests daily. This goes well beyond the minimal safety hints in annotations.

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 text is a single dense paragraph but front-loads the core purpose in the first sentence. Every subsequent sentence adds crucial context: scope restriction, claim_token behavior, rate limit, and pricing. It is slightly long but efficient for the behavioral complexity it must convey.

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 (nested context object, no output schema, claim_token lifecycle), the description covers the full flow: what happens on filing (returns claim_token), how to check status later (pass token back), and constraints (rate limit, scope). There are no significant gaps.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful semantic value by mapping the 'type' enum to real-world scenarios (bug = wrong data, feature = wish, praise = worked well) and explaining the claim_token workflow contextually. It doesn't fully repurpose the schema but enhances it enough for a 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 opens with a strong, specific action: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly identifies the resource (Pipeworx team) and distinguishes this tool from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or discover_tools by focusing on reporting feedback rather than querying data.

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 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' and instructs users to file with other servers for third-party tools, which is exemplary usage guidance.

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

All Thegamesdb 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set contains several tightly overlapping clusters: ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical) vs ask_pipeworx_grounded, five polymarket_* tools with related purposes, and entity_profile vs compare_entities vs recent_changes covering similar company-research ground. The four game tools are distinct but swamped by the unrelated Pipeworx majority, making correct tool selection genuinely difficult.

Naming Consistency2/5

No coherent naming scheme spans the set: snake_case verb_noun (get_game, list_platforms, scan_dependency) coexists with verb_prefix descriptors (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt), domain-prefixed nouns (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending), and bare verbs like recall and forget. Even within the Pipeworx cluster, styles vary unpredictably (ask_pipeworx vs pipeworx_feedback vs scan_competitor_ai_presence).

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is far too many for a server named Thegamesdb, where only 4 of 35 tools relate to the game database at all. The remaining 31 tools constitute a broad Pipeworx data platform with heavy internal overlap, making the surface feel bloated rather than well-scoped.

Completeness2/5

For the declared TheGamesDB domain, coverage is minimal: search, get-by-id, and list genres/platforms, with no per-platform game listings, images/artwork, or updates/refresh functionality. If the true domain is Pipeworx data access, the surface is fairly complete, but as presented under Thegamesdb there are major gaps and a severe identity mismatch.

Resources