Skip to main content
Glama

Trakt

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?

Annotations are all false (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint), so description carries the burden. It discloses rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), the claim_token lifecycle ('Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later'), and notes that feedback doesn't count against quota. This is rich behavioral context beyond annotations.

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 adds necessary detail for a tool with multiple use cases and a callback mechanism. It is front-loaded with the main purpose, then covers exclusions, token workflow, rate limits, and cost. No filler or redundancy.

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 (4 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description fully covers usage scenarios, exclusions, token retrieval, rate limits, and team process. It explains enough about returns (claim_token, status) even without an output schema. This is complete for an agent to invoke correctly.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra value by explaining the claim_token usage pattern concretely ('pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})') and the context object's purpose in relating to Pipeworx tools/packs. However, the schema already documents each parameter well, so the increment is modest.

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 specifies the verb (tell/feedback) and resource (Pipeworx team), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or discover_tools by focusing on reporting issues 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: for bugs, feature requests, data gaps, or praise. Also gives a clear exclusion: only for tools served by this Pipeworx connection, not other vendors' MCP servers. Additionally, explains the claim_token workflow for reading previous feedback, which is a key usage pattern.

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

All Trakt 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
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set has significant overlap among query and research tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, bet_research) and among entity/company tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes). Despite detailed descriptions, an agent would struggle to select the correct tool without careful reading, especially for nuanced differences.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool naming is inconsistent: some start with verbs (ask_, generate_, validate_, scan_, subscribe) while others are nouns (entity_profile, popular, trending, search, recent_alerts, recent_changes). The snake_case style is consistent, but the verb_noun pattern is not, making predictions of tool names difficult.

Tool Count3/5

38 tools is on the high side for a single server, but the scope is broad (general query, research, Trakt, subscriptions, memory). The count is appropriate for the wide range of functionality, though some tools could be merged to reduce cognitive load.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a very wide range of tasks: querying, research, entity profiles, comparisons, subscriptions, memory, Trakt operations, etc. For the Trakt domain, it has all essential operations (search, get, list, trending). The Pipeworx side has a comprehensive set for data access, grounding, and validation. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no update for subscriptions), but overall it is well-covered.

Resources