Skip to main content
Glama

Usda Fdc

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?

Beyond the all-false annotations, the description discloses rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), the claim_token workflow for later status checks, and the fact it's free and doesn't count against quota. It also explains the team's daily digest cadence. No contradiction with 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 longer than average but information-dense—each sentence contributes (purpose, scope, workflow, limits). It is well-structured and front-loaded with the main action, though slightly verbose compared to simpler tools.

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 no output schema, the description covers the key return value (claim_token) and its subsequent use. It also explains the scope, rate limits, and team response cadence, making it sufficient for an agent to invoke correctly and set expectations.

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% (baseline 3), but the description adds crucial context: how claim_token is used to read replies, that it can be passed with no other arguments, and the purpose of context fields (pack, tool, vertical). It enriches the schema by describing real-world usage.

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+resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly distinguishes from sibling research/discovery tools by focusing on feedback for Pipeworx tools, not on data retrieval or analysis.

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?

Explicitly lists when to use: '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 states an exclusion: 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection' and directs users elsewhere for other MCP servers, offering alternatives. This is textbook usage guidance.

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

All Usda Fdc 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The tool set mixes USDA food data tools with a large number of unrelated tools (Polymarket betting, AI visibility, npm scanning, etc.), causing significant overlap in purpose. Many tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and bet_research all perform research/lookups with similar scopes, making it difficult for an agent to select the appropriate tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names generally follow a descriptive verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_foods, search_foods), but there is inconsistency in prefixes (ask_pipeworx vs. pipeworx_feedback vs. polymarket_arbitrage) and some names are long and varied. The naming is readable but not highly predictable.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a server ostensibly focused on USDA Food Data Central. Many tools are unrelated to food (e.g., Polymarket, Kalshi, npm scanning, subscription management), making the server feel bloated and unfocused. A typical food data server would have 5-10 tools.

Completeness4/5

For the USDA FDC domain, the tool surface is complete: it includes list, search, get, and nutrient retrieval. However, the presence of many unrelated tools dilutes the server's focus. The food-specific operations are well-covered, but the overall server lacks coherence.

Resources