Skip to main content
Glama

ukpolice

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?

Beyond the annotations (all false), the description discloses essential behaviors: rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, returns a claim_token when filing without an account, and how to use that token to check resolution status. It also mentions free usage and no quota impact, which are useful operational details.

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 somewhat long, but every sentence earns its place by covering purpose, use cases, exclusions, token workflow, rate limit, and cost. It is front-loaded with the core action and then provides necessary context. Slight deduction for length, but no 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 (multiple feedback types, claim-token workflow, scope restrictions), the description fully covers what to report, when to use it, how to identify Pipeworx tools, how to retrieve status, and operational constraints. No output schema exists, but the description explains the claim_token return and follow-up behavior, making it complete for an agent.

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, but the description adds valuable parameter semantics: instructing not to paste the end-user's prompt, describing issue scope in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, and showing exact usage of claim_token. This enriches understanding beyond the schema's field descriptions.

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 submits feedback to the Pipeworx team about broken, missing, or praise-worthy tools. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on feedback about Pipeworx tools/packs, not on asking questions or discovering tools. The verb 'Tell' and resource 'Pipeworx team' are specific.

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?

It explicitly specifies when to use (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and provides an exclusion: not for tools from other MCP servers, with the alternative to file with that server instead. It also clarifies that Pipeworx tool names are those listed by this connection, giving concrete guidance for identifying applicable tools.

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

All ukpolice 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 clusters of tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research all answer questions, and the five polymarket_* tools require careful reading to distinguish. The three UK police tools are clear, but they sit among many near-duplicate data-query and memory utilities.

Naming Consistency2/5

Mixed conventions: snake_case verb_noun (get_crimes) coexists with brand-style names (ask_pipeworx), noun phrases (polymarket_arbitrage), and bare verbs (forget, recall). The polymarket_* and ask_pipeworx_* families are internally consistent, but the overall set lacks a single pattern.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is heavy, and only three relate to the server's stated ukpolice domain, while the rest form a general-purpose data platform. Many meta-tools (suggest_questions, discover_tools, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, memory) add bulk relative to the core purpose.

Completeness3/5

For the actual Pipeworx scope, coverage is strong: query, research, comparisons, subscriptions, memory, and feedback are all present. But for the ukpolice name, it is missing many UK police endpoints (neighborhoods, stop-and-search, etc.) and has no write/update operations, so the surface feels mismatched.

Resources