Skip to main content
Glama

Vimeo

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even though annotations exist (readOnlyHint=false, etc.), the description adds valuable behavioral context: rate limits (5 per identifier per day), claim_token mechanics for tracking reports, and that it's free and doesn't count against quota. These details go beyond what annotations provide and clarify what the user can expect.

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 earns its place, covering purpose, usage scenarios, exclusions, token mechanics, rate limits, and cost. It is front-loaded with the main action and structured to move from general guidance to specific examples. No fluff or 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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description carries the burden of explaining returns, which it does via the claim_token mechanism. It fully covers the tool's lifecycle: when to use, how to construct feedback, what the token means, and how to follow up. It also addresses common pitfalls like describing end-user prompts and using non-Pipeworx tools.

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?

The schema already provides 100% coverage with descriptions for all parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics for claim_token specifically ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"})'), which is more than the schema provides. It also clarifies the message content guidance ('don't paste the end-user's prompt'), adding value beyond the schema.

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 opening sentence clearly states the tool's function: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' This is a specific verb-resource pairing that distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx, which is for asking questions rather than submitting feedback.

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 usage guidelines: 'Use when a tool returns wrong/stale data (bug)... feature/data_gap... praise' and specifies when not to use it ('if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead'). It also gives a method for disambiguating Pipeworx tools by name.

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

All Vimeo 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-duplicates, and the polymarket_* family has six tools with blurred boundaries. The Vimeo tools are distinct, but the massive unrelated Pipeworx set creates ambiguity about which tool is appropriate for a given task.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix conventions: Vimeo tools use bare nouns (video, channel, user), while Pipeworx tools use verb_noun (resolve_entity, validate_claim) or noun_verb (ai_visibility_check). Some names like ask_pipeworx and pipeworx_feedback do not follow a consistent verb-first pattern.

Tool Count2/5

40 tools is far too many for a Vimeo server; only 9 tools are Vimeo-related, and the remaining 31 are an unrelated Pipeworx data toolkit. This inflates the surface area and makes the set unwieldy.

Completeness2/5

The Vimeo surface covers read operations (search, get, list) but lacks any write operations like upload, update, or delete videos. It also misses common Vimeo features like comments, likes, or portfolio management, so common tasks would hit dead ends.

Resources