Skip to main content
Glama

Vizier

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.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses significant behavioral details beyond the all-false annotations: the claim_token mechanism for later status retrieval, rate-limiting to 5 per identifier per day, absence of tool-call quota impact, and daily team review. No contradictions 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Although the description is long, every sentence delivers actionable information—purpose, scope, feedback categories, boundary conditions, token mechanics, rate limits, and pricing. It is front-loaded with the core action and contains no redundant or filler text.

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 lacking an output schema, the description explains the return value (claim_token) and how to use it later, along with submission guidelines, rate limits, and scope checks. This makes the tool operationally complete for an AI agent to invoke correctly.

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?

While the schema already covers all four parameters with descriptions, the tool description adds meaningful usage constraints: instructing users not to paste end-user prompts, to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, and how to use claim_token to read prior feedback replies. This goes beyond the schema baseline.

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?

Clearly states the tool's core function: sending feedback to the Pipeworx team about broken, missing, or surprisingly good functionality. It distinguishes itself from sibling ask_pipeworx tools by focusing on feedback submission rather than information retrieval.

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 when-to-use scenarios (bug, feature/data_gap, praise) and when-not-to-use (tools from other MCP servers), with a concrete alternative (file with that server). Also clarifies how to identify Pipeworx tools, giving agents clear decision criteria.

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

All Vizier 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
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools occupy adjacent roles: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical in behavior, discover_tools and suggest_questions both serve discovery, and the astronomy plus Polymarket scanners have overlapping boundaries. The descriptions are unusually detailed and do differentiate most tools, but the number of near-neighbor tools still creates real selection risk.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are uniformly snake_case and mostly descriptive, which helps, but the grammatical pattern is inconsistent: verb_noun names (compare_entities, resolve_entity) sit alongside bare nouns (catalogs, object) and bare verbs (remember, recall, forget). It is readable but not a predictable verb_noun convention.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, the surface is well beyond what an agent can comfortably hold in mind. The set mixes a data-research core with one-off utilities like generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, and AI-visibility auditing, making it feel like a grab-bag rather than a scoped server.

Completeness4/5

The core data-research workflow is strongly covered: plain and grounded Q&A, deep research, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, claim validation, recent changes, tool discovery, memory, and subscription lifecycle all exist. Minor gaps remain, such as no subscription-update operation and no generic citation-fetch tool, but there are no serious dead ends.

Resources