Skip to main content
Glama

Weather Gc Ca

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations are all false/neutral, so the description carries the burden. It discloses behavioral traits not visible elsewhere: claim_token return and retrieval, daily rate limit of 5, not counting against quota, and daily digest review by the team. This goes well beyond annotations and fully informs the agent of side effects and constraints.

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 long but dense with value: every sentence covers a distinct facet (purpose, when to use, exclusions, claim_token behavior, rate limit, no quota). It is front-loaded with the core purpose before diving into specifics. Slightly verbose but well-organized; no wasted words.

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 4 parameters including a nested context object and no output schema, but the description compensates fully. It explains the return value (claim_token), the expected message style, the optional context, and the resolution flow. An agent gets all necessary information to use the tool correctly across its modes.

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 the description doesn't need to repeat parameter details. However, it adds meaningful usage context for claim_token by showing the exact call format and noting it should be used alone, which is not in the schema. Minor redundancy with schema descriptions but adds practical invocation knowledge.

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 clear, specific verb and resource: "Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist." It enumerates feedback types (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) which distinguishes it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx or discover_tools. This is a definitive statement of purpose with no ambiguity.

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 when-to-use guidance: "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)." It also states a clear exclusion: file with a different server for non-Pipeworx tools, and offers a decision heuristic for uncertainty. This is exemplary usage guidance.

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

All Weather Gc Ca 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
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct purposes (e.g., current_observations vs. climate_daily), but several query tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, bet_research) overlap in function, all routing questions to a large tool catalog. This can confuse an agent about which to use.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are snake_case but follow no consistent pattern: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx), some noun_adjective (climate_daily), others compound (ai_visibility_check). The mix is readable but not predictable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is high for a server named 'Weather Gc Ca', which implies a focused weather service. Many tools are unrelated to weather (Polymarket, SEC, FDA, etc.), making the count inflated and mismatched to the server's apparent scope.

Completeness2/5

For weather, the server covers alerts, current observations, and climate records but lacks forecasts, radar, satellite imagery, and station listings. While the broader Pipeworx catalog is extensive, the weather-specific surface is incomplete for a dedicated weather tool.

Resources