Skip to main content
Glama

Victorian Complaint

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With all annotations set to false, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It explains the claim_token flow ('Filing without an account returns a `claim_token`; pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})'), rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), and the fact that it is free and doesn't count against quota. It also notes that the team reads digests daily, providing expectations on response time.

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 sizeable but every sentence contributes unique information: purpose, types, exclusion, claim_token flow, rate limit, and cost. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured logically. No redundant or filler content.

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?

Given four parameters (including a nested object), no output schema, and no helpful annotations, the description covers all necessary context: how to submit, what to include, how to follow up, and what to expect (token, status, changes). It even addresses edge cases like 'Not sure?' and redirects off-topic feedback. This is fully complete for the tool's complexity.

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 beyond the schema by explaining the claim_token lifecycle (how to use it to check status), directing users to 'Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt,' and clarifying the meaning of the type enum values. This elevates the parameter understanding beyond the schema alone.

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 function: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It enumerates the specific feedback types (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and confines its scope to 'tools served by this Pipeworx connection,' distinguishing it from any sibling tools that might collect feedback. The verb 'Tell' is specific and the resource is explicit.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance: '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 an exclusion: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead.' This is an exemplary usage guideline.

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

All Victorian Complaint 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tool clusters overlap heavily: three ask_pipeworx variants, five polymarket_* tools, and two AI-visibility tools (ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence) could easily be misselected. While descriptions are detailed, the boundaries between search/research/bet/compare tools are blurry enough to cause agent confusion.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names follow a consistent lowercase snake_case pattern, and most use a verb-first or noun-based descriptive style (ask_pipeworx, bet_research, entity_profile, validate_claim). Minor deviations like deep_research or process_v2 are absent here; the set is largely predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 32 tools, the server exceeds the 25-tool threshold for heaviness. Many tools are edge-case variants or meta-features (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, suggest_questions) that could be consolidated. The server's stated identity as 'Victorian Complaint' also clashes with this scale, making the count feel excessive for the apparent core purpose.

Completeness4/5

The tool set provides broad coverage for data research, entity resolution, comparison, memory, subscriptions, and prediction-market analysis. It supports query, research, discover, validate, and monitor workflows with few dead ends. Minor gaps like a generic 'get_entity' or direct data-writing tools exist, but they are not core to the implied domain.

Resources