Skip to main content
Glama

Virustotal

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?

Despite no annotations, the description discloses rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), quotas ('doesn't count against your tool-call quota'), the claim_token workflow, and how the team processes feedback daily. This goes well beyond what annotations would provide.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage criteria, exclusions, feedback specifics, claim_token handling, and rate limits. It is front-loaded with the most critical information and maintains a logical flow without 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?

Given the tool's complexity (4 params, nested objects, no output schema), the description fully covers when to use, how to use, what to expect, and limitations. It even addresses the fallback claim_token mechanism, making it self-sufficient 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?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches parameter understanding significantly. It explains the claim_token lifecycle ('Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later...'), clarifies the type field mappings, and instructs what to include in the message ('Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt').

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 specific action: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly defines the resource (Pipeworx team) and the scope (tools served by this connection), distinguishing it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or discover_tools.

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?

Provides explicit use cases: bug, feature/data_gap, praise. Also gives a clear exclusion: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead.' It even explains how to identify when the tool is relevant ('Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists').

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

All Virustotal 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

The set mixes several overlapping families: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are described as currently identical, while ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, bet_research, and validate_claim all route to the same underlying data sources. Polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, spread) also blur together; only the four lookup_* VirusTotal functions are cleanly distinct.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are uniformly snake_case with a few consistent families (lookup_domain/file/ip/url, ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), which helps. However, the set mixes imperative verbs (remember, forget, subscribe, validate_claim), noun phrases (entity_profile, deep_research, recent_alerts), and inconsistent prefixes, so no single naming convention holds across the server.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is too many for the apparent purpose, especially for a server named Virustotal. The bulk of the tools address unrelated Pipeworx research, memory, and prediction-market functions, so the count does not reflect the server's advertised domain.

Completeness1/5

For a VirusTotal server, only four lookup tools exist and there is no way to submit a URL/file, create a scan, retrieve analysis details, or explore relationships—core VirusTotal operations are missing. Scoped broadly, the unrelated Pipeworx tools are extensive, but they do not fill the gaps in the advertised domain. The surface is severely incomplete relative to the server name.

Resources