Skip to main content
Glama

Usgs Water

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. First observed

TDQS

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false, providing minimal safety signals, so the description fully bears the transparency burden. It discloses rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), the claim_token workflow ('Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later... to read whether it was fixed'), and that it is 'Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota.' These are meaningful behavioral traits beyond the 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?

Though long, every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage triggers, exclusion for non-Pipeworx tools, claim_token mechanics, rate limit, digest frequency, cost. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured logically, avoiding fluff.

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?

The tool has dual modes (filing feedback and checking a prior filing via claim_token), no output schema, and a complex input schema with nested context. The description explains both modes, rate limits, scope, and what to include, making it fully self-contained for an agent to invoke correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds substantial operational detail: it instructs how to frame the message ('Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt') and gives an exact usage pattern for claim_token ('pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})'). This goes beyond the schema's field-level 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 a clear, specific verb and resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It enumerates use cases (bug, feature, data_gap, praise), making it distinct from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or discover_tools, which are for querying or discovery.

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 states 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 gives a clear exclusion: only for tools served by this Pipeworx connection, and directs users to file with other MCP servers instead, which is an explicit alternative.

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

All Usgs Water 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several clusters of tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all route/discover questions across the same 5,743 tools, differing mainly in mode or betaness. The polymarket_* family (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) similarly overlaps in prediction-market edge detection. An agent would frequently struggle to pick the right tool from these near-duplicate groups despite verbose descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Snake_case is used throughout, but patterns are mixed: some tools are verb-first (ask_pipeworx, find_sites, recall, forget, subscribe), some are noun phrases (current_conditions, entity_profile, bet_research), and some use a domain prefix (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*). The version-suffixed ask_pipeworx_beta is also a minor deviation from the otherwise clear descriptive style.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for a server named 'Usgs Water' since only 3 tools (current_conditions, daily_values, find_sites) actually relate to USGS water data. Even as a general Pipeworx platform server, the count is heavy, with many tools dedicated to niche prediction-market trading and meta-routing that inflate the surface.

Completeness1/5

Against the stated USGS Water purpose, the surface is severely incomplete: it lacks water-quality samples, groundwater data, site metadata details, historical statistics, rating curves, parameter code lookup, and flood/alert data. The remaining 31 tools cover an entirely different domain (SEC filings, drugs, prediction markets, npm scans, memory), so agents using this server for water data will hit dead ends almost immediately.

Resources