Skip to main content
Glama

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?

With no behavioral hints from annotations (readOnlyHint=false, openWorldHint=false, idempotentHint=false, destructiveHint=false), the description takes full responsibility. It discloses the claim_token flow, rate-limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), non-quota usage ('doesn't count against your tool-call quota'), and expected processing cadence ('team reads digests daily'), which goes beyond the minimal and is highly informative for an agent.

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 front-loaded with purpose, then usage, exclusions, and behavior. Every sentence carries necessary information: when to use, when not to use, how to frame content, claim-token mechanics, rate limits, and quota note. Despite length, it is dense and efficient, with no filler or 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?

The description is fully self-contained for an agent to decide, invoke, and handle results correctly. It covers output behavior (claim_token generation, later retrieval), rate limits, scope constraints, and content guidance. No output schema exists, but the description sufficiently explains what to expect, so the agent won't be surprised.

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% for the four parameters, so baseline is 3. The description adds semantic value by explaining the claim_token usage pattern ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"}) to read whether it was fixed'), and ties the context object to 'Pipeworx tools/packs'. This enriches parameter understanding without duplicating schema detail.

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 uses a specific verb ('Tell the Pipeworx team') and resource ('something is broken, missing, or needs to exist'), clearly defining the tool's purpose. It distinguishes from sibling tools (which are for research/info) by framing this as feedback submission, with explicit types (bug, feature, data_gap, praise).

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 guidance for each feedback type and an explicit exclusion: 'ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection... if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead.' It also clarifies the scope (Pipeworx tools/packs) and instructs not to paste end-user prompts, giving clear usage boundaries.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.