Skip to main content
Glama

Tomtom

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. First observed

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds significant context beyond the annotations: mentions rate-limiting (5 per identifier per day), that filing without an account returns a claim_token, the token can be passed back later to read status, the team reads digests daily, and it is free and doesn't count against quota. The annotations only state readOnlyHint=false etc., and the description richly complements them without contradiction.

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 long but every sentence earns its place. It covers purpose, exclusions, token flow, rate limits, and roadmap impact without fluff. It uses a clear cause-effect structure with practical instructions, so the length is justified for a behavior-rich tool.

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 4 optional parameters, nested context object, and no output schema, the description covers all necessary operational details: how to file, how to claim, what happens after, and constraints. It even preempts common errors like filing about other MCP servers or pasting user prompts. Complete for a tool of this complexity.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining workflow semantics: how claim_token is obtained and used ('pass the pwfb_… token that filing returned, with no other arguments'), and what message should describe ('in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt'). It clarifies the purpose of the context object and the type enums with practical examples, adding real meaning.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist. It distinguishes this from sibling tools by emphasizing that it is ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection, and describes the specific feedback categories (bug, feature, data_gap, praise). The verb 'tell' paired with the resource 'Pipeworx feedback' 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?

Explicitly provides when to use and when not to use: use for wrong/stale data, missing tools, or praise; do NOT use for tools from a different MCP server. Offers a fallback (file it with that server instead) and disambiguates via 'Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists.' This far exceeds the typical guidance.

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

All Tomtom 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

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical behavior), and ask_pipeworx_grounded are variants of the same router, and the six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research all operate in the same prediction-market space. The extremely detailed descriptions help an agent differentiate, but misselection risk remains real.

Naming Consistency4/5

Snake_case is used consistently and most tools follow a verb_noun pattern (resolve_entity, validate_claim, discover_tools), with predictable polymarket_ and pipeworx_ family prefixes. Minor deviations exist — entity_profile and recent_alerts are noun/adjective phrases, generate_llms_txt embeds a file extension, and single-word verbs (remember, route, geocode) break the strict pattern — but overall naming is coherent.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, the server exceeds the comfortable range and bundles many unrelated domains: data lookup, prediction markets, geocoding/navigation, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, npm scanning, and llms.txt generation. While every tool has a distinct purpose, the surface is heavy and would benefit from splitting into focused servers.

Completeness4/5

Each major cluster has strong lifecycle coverage: data lookup (router, grounded mode, deep research, discovery), company research (resolve, profile, compare, changes), prediction markets (research, arb, edges, fill risk, cross-venue spread), memory (remember/recall/forget), and subscriptions (subscribe/list/unsubscribe/alerts). Minor gaps exist — no direct Polymarket order placement and no explicit tool for fetching pipeworx:// URIs (left to resources) — but agents can accomplish the stated purposes.

Resources