Skip to main content
Glama

Vat

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 only mark all hints false (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, destructive), so the description carries the burden of explaining side effects. It discloses the claim_token flow ('Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later...'), rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), and cost ('Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota'). These add meaningful behavioral context beyond the sparse 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 front-loaded with the core purpose in the first sentence, then organized into successive clauses covering when, scope, exclusions, and workflow. Although longer than typical, every sentence earns its place—the 'Not sure?' clarification, claim_token mechanics, rate limit, and quota note all add necessary context. No filler or repetition exists, making it efficient despite its length.

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 feedback submission tool with no output schema, the description covers all critical angles: purpose, use cases, scope limitations, how to handle tokens, rate limits, and expected turnaround ('team reads digests daily'). It even handles ambiguous cases like 'Not sure?' with a simple heuristic. Given the tool's modest complexity and absent output schema, the description is fully complete 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% with all four parameters described. The description adds genuine value beyond the schema: it explains how claim_token is initially obtained ('Filing without an account returns a claim_token') and provides content guidance for message/context ('Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt'). This goes beyond the baseline and enriches parameter understanding.

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 statement of purpose: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It distinguishes itself from sibling research tools by enumerating exact use cases (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and ties them to specific triggers like wrong/stale data or missing catalog items. This exceeds simple verb+resource clarity and directly separates it from alternatives like ask_pipeworx.

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?

Explicit when-to-use guidance is present: '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 — if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead.' This provides both positive and negative usage contexts with a named alternative.

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

All Vat 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions to the same underlying catalog, and ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx. ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence also overlap, and entity_profile vs recent_changes cover similar ground. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent would frequently struggle to pick the right tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but the pattern is inconsistent: some are verb-first (validate_vat, list_vat_formats, resolve_entity), some are noun-first (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, recent_alerts), and some are product-branded (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_feedback). It's readable but does not follow a single predictable verb_noun convention.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold for a coherent set, especially for a server named 'Vat' where only two tools (list_vat_formats, validate_vat) relate to the apparent purpose. The bulk forms a broad data-research platform that would be more appropriately split into separate VAT and Pipeworx servers.

Completeness4/5

For the actual data-research domain, coverage is strong: discovery, single lookup, grounded answers, deep multi-source research, entity resolution, comparisons, claim verification, memory, subscriptions, and prediction-market tooling are all present. The only clear gap is that the VAT-specific surface is minimal (format validation only, no registration/VIES check), but the overall functional surface is otherwise quite complete.

Resources