Skip to main content
Glama

Transport Feeds

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, giving no safety or side-effect hints, so the description carries the full burden. It discloses rate limits ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), quota impact ('Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota'), and the claim-token flow for unauthenticated users. It also mentions response timing ('team reads digests daily'), which is genuinely useful behavioral context.

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 a dense paragraph, but every sentence earns its place: use cases, server-exclusion rule, message guidance, token behavior, review cadence, rate limit, and quota note. It is front-loaded with the purpose and contains no redundant phrases or filler.

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 no output schema, all-false annotations, and four parameters including a nested object, the description covers the essential ground: purpose, trigger conditions, exclusions, token-based follow-up, rate limiting, and quota effect. An agent has everything needed to decide when and how to invoke this tool 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?

The schema already describes all parameters (100% coverage), so baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond bare parameter definitions by explaining the claim_token lifecycle ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"}) to read whether it was fixed') and providing message-composition guidance ('Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt'). This pushes it to 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 specific verb plus resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' This clearly differentiates it from sibling research/feed tools, which are about retrieving or analyzing data, not submitting feedback.

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 explicitly enumerates when to use the tool ('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)') and gives a clear exclusion: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead.' This is textbook guidance with alternatives.

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

All Transport Feeds 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There is substantial overlap among the many question-answering tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, compare_entities, entity_profile, recent_changes) and the prediction-market tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread). While each has nuanced differences, agents will struggle to select the right one, especially with several 'ask_pipeworx' variants that behave nearly identically.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tool names use snake_case, but patterns vary widely: some are verb_noun (list_feeds, read_feed, subscribe, unsubscribe, remember), others are noun_phrases (polymarket_arbitrage, pipeworx_trending, entity_profile), and a few like 'ask_pipeworx' and 'bet_research' don't follow a consistent structure. The mixed conventions make prediction of new tool names difficult.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, this is far too many for a server named 'Transport Feeds'. The majority of tools are unrelated to transport feeds, covering generic data research, prediction markets, and memory utilities. The count overwhelms any focused purpose and would require extensive discovery to navigate.

Completeness3/5

For the actual data-research and prediction-market functions, the surface is quite complete—covering lookups, comparisons, grounded verification, arbitrage scans, fill risk, trending, and subscriptions. However, for the declared domain (transport feeds), there are only two feed-specific tools (list_feeds, read_feed) with no write/update/delete operations, leaving obvious gaps.

Resources