Skip to main content
Glama

trivia

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. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false/neutral, so the description bears the full burden. It discloses rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), the optional account-claim flow ('Filing without an account returns a claim_token'), follow-up semantics, and operational details like 'doesn't count against your tool-call quota.' This goes far 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.

Conciseness4/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is long but front-loaded: the main purpose and use cases come first, followed by exclusions and mechanics. Every sentence adds value. Slightly verbose with multiple caveats, but structurally sound and appropriately sized for a feedback tool that needs clear guidelines.

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?

With 4 params, no output schema, and nested object, the description covers the full workflow: when to use, what to include, token handling, exclusions, and rate limits. There is no ambiguity left for the agent about how to invoke or follow up. Complete.

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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds workflow context: explains what claim_token does ('pass it back later... to read whether it was fixed'), and instructs on message construction ('Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs'). This is meaningful added semantics beyond the schema.

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 enumerates specific use cases (bug, feature/data_gap, praise), making it unambiguous and distinguishing it from all sibling tools, none of which are feedback-related.

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: tools from other MCP servers, and directs the user to file with that server instead. This is ideal usage guidance.

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

All trivia 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

Several tools have notably unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, and polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and bet_research heavily overlap in surfacing betting opportunities. Entity_profile, recent_changes, and compare_entities also share overlapping research scope, making misselection likely.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names use snake_case and a roughly readable verb_noun style (resolve_entity, compare_entities, list_categories), but conventions vary: some are bare nouns (entity_profile), some are plain verbs (remember, forget), and ask_pipeworx/pipeworx_* break the pattern. It is readable overall, but not a consistent scheme.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is far more than the 'trivia' name implies, and most of them (Pipeworx research, Polymarket analysis, memory, subscriptions) are unrelated to trivia. The set reads as an entire platform bundled together rather than a purpose-scoped server.

Completeness2/5

For the stated trivia purpose, the surface is missing core lifecycle features like quiz sessions, answer validation, or scoring; the few trivia tools are just category/reference lookups. As a general data/research server it is broad, but there are significant gaps and no coherent domain model tying the tools together.

Resources