Skip to main content
Glama

wikipedia

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?

Despite sparse annotations, the description fully discloses behavior: rate limiting ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), quota ('doesn't count against your tool-call quota'), the claim_token workflow, and feedback handling ('team reads digests daily'). This goes well beyond annotation hints and provides all necessary operational context.

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 detailed but well-structured, with clear sections for usage, exclusions, workflow, and limits. Sentences are purposeful and front-loaded with the core purpose. While slightly long, each sentence earns its place and the structure aids comprehension.

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 no output schema, the description fully explains return behavior (claim_token) and how to use it for follow-up. It covers rate limits, quota, and alternative channels. It is complete for a feedback tool with this complexity.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the claim_token usage ('pass it back later as pipeworx_feedback({claim_token:"pwfb_…"}) to read whether it was fixed') and message specifics ('Be specific... 1-2 sentences typical'). This exceeds 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?

The description clearly states the tool's purpose: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It uses a specific verb ('Tell') and resource ('Pipeworx team'), and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx by focusing on feedback rather than asking questions.

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: '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).' Also gives a clear when-not-to-use: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead.' This is exemplary guidance.

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

All wikipedia 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool families have ambiguous boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are three variants of the same router (with beta currently identical), and the six polymarket tools plus bet_research heavily overlap in scanning and pricing edges. discover_tools, suggest_questions, and deep_research also all function as 'what should I query' entry points. Agents will struggle to select the right tool without carefully reading long descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Many tools follow a clear verb-first snake_case pattern (get_article_extract, resolve_entity, subscribe, validate_claim), and families like ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_* are internally consistent. However, notable noun-phrase outliers such as entity_profile, deep_research, bet_research, recent_changes, pipeworx_feedback, and polymarket_edge_tracker break the convention. The naming is readable but not predictable across the full set.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well over the 25+ threshold for a typical MCP server, and for a server named 'wikipedia' it is especially disproportionate: only 5 tools actually deal with Wikipedia while 31 are Pipeworx data, prediction-market, memory, subscription, and feedback utilities. The count reflects a broad all-in-one platform crammed into a Wikipedia-labeled surface rather than a well-scoped server. This is a significant scope mismatch.

Completeness4/5

The Wikipedia portion is reasonably complete for read-only lookup: search, summary, sections, full extract, and random discovery cover common encyclopedic questions without dead ends. The broader Pipeworx surface is also extensive, with query, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution/profile/comparison, claim validation, memory, and subscription lifecycle tools. Minor gaps remain (no article categories/history, no update for subscriptions, no direct fetch of a citation URI), but they are workable.

Resources