Skip to main content
Glama

W3c

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?

Annotations are all false/neutral, so the description carries full burden. It discloses rate limiting (5/day), cost (free, no quota), the claim_token workflow for tracking resolution, and processing cadence (daily digests, roadmap signal). 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?

Lengthy but purposeful; each sentence adds distinct operational detail (scope, exclusions, token semantics, limits). Front-loaded with a clear purpose statement. Slightly verbose but well-structured and information-dense.

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?

For a feedback tool with 4 parameters and no output schema, the description covers who receives feedback, what to report, exclusion criteria, token return/usage, rate limits, and team behavior, leaving no material gaps.

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?

Schema already documents each parameter at 100% coverage; description adds crucial semantics for claim_token as a follow-up retrieval mechanism and advises on message content (describe in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, don't paste end-user prompt), going beyond 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 description opens with a specific imperative—'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist'—and enumerates feedback categories (bug, feature/data_gap, praise). This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools that perform research or visibility checks rather than collect 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?

Explicitly states when to use (tool returns wrong/stale data, missing tool, praise) and when not to (tools from other MCP servers), even directing users to file those elsewhere. Includes a disambiguation cue ('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 W3c 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The three ask_pipeworx variants plus deep_research and validate_claim overlap heavily on the same routing capability — ask_pipeworx_beta is even explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now. The polymarket tools (arbitrage/edges/edge_tracker/fill_risk/kalshi_spread) form a second cluster with fuzzy boundaries, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap. However, most other tools (w3c_search, spec, remember/recall/forget, subscribe/unsubscribe) have clear distinct roles.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are generally descriptive snake_case with recognizable prefix families (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, w3c_*), but verb usage is inconsistent: passive labels like ai_visibility_check and entity_profile sit alongside imperatives like recall, forget, subscribe, and resolve_. There's no uniform verb_noun or noun_pattern convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is over the heavy threshold, and the count is wildly mismatched to the server's claimed identity: the server is named 'W3c' yet only 2 of 33 tools (w3c_search, w3c_spec) relate to W3C. The remaining 31 form a sprawling Pipeworx data/prediction-market service that would justify its own server, making this aggregation incoherent.

Completeness3/5

For its actual purpose (broad data research + prediction markets), the surface is fairly complete: search, grounded answers, deep research, comparison, entity profiles, entity resolution, memory, subscriptions, and feedback cover the main workflows. But for the server's stated W3C purpose, only search and spec-detail exist with no broader standards tooling. The domain mismatch makes completeness hard to credit.

Resources