Skip to main content
Glama

Vies Eu

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

With all annotations false, the description takes on full behavioral disclosure. It explains the async claim_token flow, rate limit ('5 per identifier per day'), that it's free, and how feedback affects roadmap. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is longer than average, but each sentence contributes operational value: usage contexts, exclusions, token mechanics, rate limits, and quota impact. It front-loads the main purpose and remains well-structured, though a few sentences could be tightened without losing meaning.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the tool's behavior, return values (claim_token, later status), and lifecycle. It covers prerequisites, limitations, and workflow, making it complete for a feedback tool of this 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 baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful guidance for the claim_token parameter (pass it back later with no other arguments to read the reply) and for message content (don't paste end-user's prompt, be specific). This goes beyond the schema's basic 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 clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It uses a specific verb and resource, and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by framing this as feedback for Pipeworx's own tool catalog, not for other MCP servers.

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 gives explicit when-to-use scenarios (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and an explicit exclusion: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead.' It also clarifies that Pipeworx tool names are those listed by this connection, providing a clear decision rule for the agent.

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

All Vies Eu 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical to the stable router right now), ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route the same class of questions, making mis-selection easy. The six Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) also blur together around edge detection and arbitrage, further muddying tool boundaries.

Naming Consistency4/5

All 33 tools use consistent lowercase snake_case naming, and most follow a clear verb_noun pattern (check_vat, compare_entities, resolve_entity, unsubscribe). A handful of noun-style names (entity_profile, bet_research, polymarket_edges, recent_alerts) deviate from the verb-first pattern but are still predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is beyond the 25+ threshold for a coherent set, and the scope is sprawling: universal data routing, prediction-market analytics, VAT validation, AI visibility, memory, subscriptions, npm dependency scanning, and feedback. While each sub-domain has reason to exist, bundling them all into one server creates a kitchen-sink feel with too many entry points.

Completeness3/5

The core data-routing domain is well covered: universal router, grounded mode, deep research, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, change feeds, claim validation, and search-within. VAT has check + status, and memory/subscription lifecycles are complete. However, there is no standalone tool to fetch a raw pipeworx:// record that citations reference, and the extreme breadth means no single domain is exhaustively fleshed out.

Resources