Skip to main content
Glama

Unicode

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false/neutral, so the description carries the full burden and delivers: it discloses rate limiting (5 per identifier per day), cost (free, no quota), token-based follow-up behavior (claim_token), and human processing cadence (daily digests). This exceeds what annotations provide and gives the agent concrete expectations for side effects and limitations.

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 longer than average but every sentence carries unique information: scope, use cases, exclusions, token behavior, rate limits, and pricing. It front-loads the core purpose and then layers operational detail logically. It is well-organized, but slightly verbose; a 4 acknowledges that it earns its length without being maximally lean.

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 there is no output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining the return token, how to use it later, what to expect after resolution, and rate limits. It also covers operational context (free, no quota, daily human review) that is essential for an agent deciding whether to call this tool. The description is self-sufficient for a feedback submission workflow.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema by explaining the claim_token lifecycle (file without account -> get token -> later pass token to read status/changes) and by advising on message content ('don't paste the end-user's prompt', 'describe in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs'). This clarifies how to use the parameters effectively, nudging the score above baseline.

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.' This identifies both the action (telling/feedback) and the resource (Pipeworx team/tools), and it distinguishes the tool from siblings by focusing on feedback rather than analysis, search, or subscription 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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: report bugs for wrong/stale data, feature requests for missing tools, praise for good experiences. It also excludes use cases by stating that feedback about non-Pipeworx MCP servers should be filed elsewhere, and offers a disambiguation heuristic ('Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists').

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

All Unicode 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
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools overlap significantly: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded serve nearly the same routing purpose, with the beta variant currently identical to the stable one, and deep_research also overlaps for broad research. However, most other tools have clearly distinct functions, and descriptions provide usage guidance, so ambiguity is moderate.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names are snake_case and readable, but patterns vary between verb_noun (compare_entities, resolve_entity), noun phrases (entity_profile, polymarket_edges), and bare verbs (remember, subscribe). The pipeworx_ and polymarket_ prefixes are used inconsistently across the set, and the server name 'Unicode' does not align with the tool names.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the server is overloaded for a focused purpose, especially since only three tools relate to Unicode despite the server name. Many Polymarket and Pipeworx tools could be consolidated, and the count exceeds the well-scoped range of 3-15 tools, making the set feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

The server name claims to be about Unicode, but only char_info, escape_string, and unescape_string cover that domain, missing common operations like normalization, case conversion, and encoding validation. For the broader data-access domain the surface is fairly complete, yet there is no tool to fetch a specific pipeworx:// citation URI, leaving cited records unfetchable within the tool set—an obvious gap relative to the stated capabilities.

Resources