Skip to main content
Glama

Thesportsdb

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses the two-phase claim_token flow, rate-limiting ('5 per identifier per day'), quota impact ('doesn't count against your tool-call quota'), and human review cadence ('digests daily'). These are non-obvious behaviors that significantly aid an agent in predicting outcomes.

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 longer than average but every sentence serves a purpose: it defines the tool's scope, gives examples, warns about exclusions, explains the claim_token flow, and states limits. The structure progresses from 'what' to 'when' to 'how', and it is fully front-loaded with the core purpose.

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?

For a tool with a nested context object, no output schema, and a multi-step claim_token workflow, the description is exceptionally complete. It covers all major aspects: intended use, what not to use it for, the return token, rate limits, and roadmap impact. The agent is well-equipped to decide when and how to invoke this tool.

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?

Although schema coverage is 100% and each parameter already has a description, the tool description adds valuable semantics: it explains how claim_token is used to retrieve resolution status ('pass it back later... to read whether it was fixed'), and instructs users to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs rather than pasting prompts. This goes beyond what the schema provides.

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 and resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly differentiates itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or discover_tools by framing itself as the channel for reporting issues, gaps, or praise about Pipeworx tools.

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 scenarios: bug, feature/data_gap, praise. It also gives an exclusion rule: only for tools served by this Pipeworx connection, and directs users to file issues with other MCP servers. The line 'Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists' offers a practical disambiguation.

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

All Thesportsdb 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 sports tools are distinct, but the majority of the set has heavy overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve as query/entry-point tools, with ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly identical. The Polymarket family (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also blurs together.

Naming Consistency2/5

The sports subset follows a clean verb_noun pattern (get_player, list_leagues, search_teams), but the rest mixes several naming schemes: ask_pipeworx*, pipeworx_* prefixed tools, polymarket_* tools, one-word verbs (remember, recall, forget), and compound names like scan_competitor_ai_presence. No single consistent convention governs the set.

Tool Count2/5

42 tools is far too many for a server named Thesportsdb; only 10 tools relate to sports data, while 32 belong to an unrelated Pipeworx data/betting/memory platform. The set feels like two or three servers merged into one, making it heavy and unfocused for any single purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the stated sports domain, the surface is partial: you can get teams, players, league tables, and recent/next fixtures, but there are no player statistics, head-to-head records, venue details, or season history — leaving notable gaps. The Pipeworx half is broad but doesn't belong in a server with this name, so the set as a whole is incomplete for its apparent purpose.

Resources