Skip to main content
Glama

Useragent

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With all annotations false, the description carries the burden and does it well: it discloses rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), cost ('Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota'), the claim_token workflow for later status checks, and the requirement to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools rather than pasting end-user prompts.

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 carries actionable information, front-loaded with the purpose. The structure flows from purpose to usage criteria to exclusions to behavioral details, avoiding 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?

Functionally complete: covers when to use, what to include/exclude, the two operation modes (file vs. claim_token lookup), rate limits, and post-submission expectations ('digests daily ... affects roadmap'). The only minor gap is the lack of an explicit success response format, but the claim_token mention and schema partially cover it.

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 value by explaining the claim_token round-trip (filing returns a token to poll later) and giving content guidance ('don't paste the end-user's prompt') that refines message/context parameters. This goes slightly beyond the schema's structural 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 opens with 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist,' clearly identifying the verb (tell), resource (Pipeworx team), and scope (feedback on tool bugs, gaps, praise). It distinguishes this tool from sibling research/query tools by positioning it as the exclusive channel for reporting issues about Pipeworx 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?

Explicitly specifies when to use: for bugs, missing features, data gaps, or praise. It gives a clear exclusion—'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection'—and directs users to file issues with a different MCP server instead, plus a disambiguation tip ('Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists'). This is model guidance.

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

All Useragent 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all perform overlapping routed-search functions; ask_pipeworx_beta is even documented as currently identical to ask_pipeworx. The three Polymarket discovery tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk) also have blurry boundaries around finding vs. validating vs. executing on edges.

Naming Consistency4/5

Nearly all tools use snake_case with a verb_noun or descriptive pattern (ask_pipeworx, validate_claim, resolve_entity, list_subscriptions). Minor deviations exist — bare verbs like remember/recall/forget and noun_first names like bet_research or entity_profile — but the convention is largely predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is heavy, and the set spans unrelated domains: Pipeworx data routing, prediction-market trading, agent memory, subscription management, npm dependency checks, user-agent parsing, and llms.txt generation. The sub-clusters each earn their place individually, but as a single server surface the count is unjustifiably large and scattershot.

Completeness3/5

The Pipeworx research surface is quite complete (lookup, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, validation, entity resolution, discovery, feedback), and memory/subscription lifecycles are fully covered. However, the server has no coherent single domain — user-agent parsing (the server's namesake) has only one tool, while unrelated utilities like generate_llms_txt and scan_dependency appear with no supporting ecosystem.

Resources