Skip to main content
Glama

uselessfacts

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate non-read-only and non-idempotent behavior, and the description adds valuable context: the claim_token flow, rate limit (5/day), that it's free and doesn't count against quota, and that the team reads digests daily. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is long but every sentence earns its place—each adds a distinct, useful guideline (when to use, when not to, token flow, rate limits, privacy note). It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then expands logically.

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?

For a 4-parameter tool with nested objects and no output schema, the description covers the full workflow: how to file, what happens without an account, how to read the reply, restrictions, and what information to include. It leaves no practical questions unanswered.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and each parameter has a detailed description (type enum, context object, message constraints, claim_token usage). The description reinforces the claim_token flow but does not add significant meaning 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: sending feedback (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) to the Pipeworx team. It explicitly distinguishes itself from tools of other MCP servers, making it easy to differentiate from siblings.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use instructions for each feedback type, and a clear exclusion: do not report issues for tools from other MCP servers. Also gives guidance on what to include (tool names/packs) and what not to include (end-user prompts).

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

All uselessfacts 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx for general queries, ask_pipeworx_grounded for high-stakes verification, deep_research for multi-faceted research). However, some overlap exists among the ask_* variants and the prediction-market tools (bet_research vs. polymarket_edges vs. polymarket_arbitrage), which could cause misselection without careful reading of the detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case and mostly follow the verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, validate_claim). Minor deviations like random_fact and today_fact (adjective_noun) and pipeworx_feedback (noun_noun) introduce slight inconsistency, but the overall pattern is predictable.

Tool Count3/5

With 33 tools, the count exceeds the typical 3-15 range and even the 16-25 'heavy' threshold. While the server covers an unusually broad domain (data retrieval, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility), several tools could be consolidated (e.g., the six polymarket tools, trivial random_fact/today_fact). The scope partially justifies the count, but it feels over-provisioned.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is remarkably comprehensive for a data platform: it covers querying, entity resolution, comparison, change feeds, memory persistence, subscription management, validation, and even meta-tool discovery. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no explicit update/delete for external data, but that is not the service's purpose). Overall, no obvious dead ends.

Resources