Skip to main content
Glama

What3words

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 minimal (all hints false), so the description carries the full burden and delivers strongly. It discloses rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), that the tool is free and doesn't count against quota, that filing without an account returns a claim_token for later status checks, and that the team reads digests daily with direct roadmap impact. This goes far beyond what annotations 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 long but every sentence earns its place: purpose, when to use, when not to use, token behavior, rate limits, and impact. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and then logically expands. No fluff or repetition of the schema.

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 has 4 parameters, a nested object, and no output schema, the description compensates fully. It covers the return value (claim_token), rate limiting, scope boundaries, and intended usage patterns. An agent has everything needed to decide when and how to invoke this tool 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?

Schema coverage is 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds extra value beyond the schema by explaining the claim_token lifecycle (filing returns it, passing it back later reads resolution status), typical message length ('1-2 sentences typical'), and a 2000-char max, though the schema already covers most parameter details.

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 verb and resource: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It clearly distinguishes this feedback tool from all sibling tools, which are research/information tools, by positioning it as the channel for reporting issues about Pipeworx tools themselves.

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 gives 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 provides a clear exclusion: tools from other MCP servers should be filed elsewhere. This is model guidance with both inclusion and exclusion criteria.

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

All What3words 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
Disambiguation2/5

There is significant overlap among the meta-query tools: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions, and validate_claim all route to the same underlying data catalog with only subtle differences in grounding or scope. Company-focused tools like entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, and resolve_entity also share fuzzy boundaries. The four what3words tools are clearly distinct, but they sit awkwardly beside a much larger, partially redundant Pipeworx/prediction-market cluster.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use snake_case, which provides a base level of consistency, but the naming patterns vary widely: some are verb_noun (list_languages, recall, forget), some are X_to_Y (coords_to_words, words_to_coords), some are brand-prefixed (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), and some are bare concepts (deep_research, entity_profile, autosuggest). The ask_pipeworx family is internally consistent, as are the polymarket_* tools, but the overall set lacks a single predictable convention.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold, and the server is named What3words when only 4 of the 35 tools actually belong to that geocoding domain. Even interpreted as a general data platform, 35 tools with a heavily overlapping meta-tool layer feels bloated rather than well-scoped. The what3words-specific surface would be appropriately sized at 4-5 tools on its own.

Completeness3/5

For what3words specifically, the surface is complete: coords_to_words, words_to_coords, autosuggest, and list_languages cover the core bidirectional conversion plus discovery. However, for the broader domain the server actually serves, there are notable gaps such as no direct resolve-by-pipeworx://-URI tool and no open-web search, despite citations and external data being advertised as fetchable. The mix of geocoding, data lookup, prediction markets, memory, and subscriptions makes it unclear what complete coverage would even mean.

Resources