Skip to main content
Glama

Worldbank Projects

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 annotations having all false hints, the description adds rich behavioral context: the claim_token flow, reading resolution status later, rate limit of 5 per day, free/no quota, and the team's daily digest process. 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?

The description is long but information-dense. Every sentence provides valuable guidance, yet it could be slightly tightened without losing meaning. It front-loads the core purpose and then elaborates on edge cases and workflow details.

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 adequately covers return behavior (claim_token, later status reads), rate limiting, the scope of acceptable feedback, and exclusions for other MCP servers. 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 has 100% parameter coverage, but the description adds extra semantic guidance: instructions on how to phrase feedback (avoid pasting user prompts), how claim_token works as a return value, and the context object's role. This exceeds the schema descriptions.

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: to tell the Pipeworx team about something broken, missing, or needed. It provides specific triggers (bug, feature, data_gap, praise) and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being the dedicated feedback channel for Pipeworx tools.

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 instructs when to use the tool (for bugs, feature requests, praises) and when not to (for tools from other MCP servers), directing users to file with the appropriate server. This goes beyond mere context and gives clear decision criteria.

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

All Worldbank Projects 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Tools are generally distinguishable by name and description, but there are several similar query/verification tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim) and multiple meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions), causing some ambiguity for agents.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools use verb_noun (search_projects, validate_claim), others are noun_preposition_noun (projects_by_country), single verbs (remember, forget), or compound phrases (generate_llms_txt). No clear pattern.

Tool Count1/5

33 tools is excessive for a server named 'Worldbank Projects', as only 3-4 tools directly relate to Worldbank data. The rest are generic Pipeworx utilities and unrelated domains, making the tool count inappropriate for the server's stated purpose.

Completeness1/5

For the domain of Worldbank Projects, only basic lookup and search tools are provided (search_projects, get_project, projects_by_country). Missing essential CRUD operations, filtering by sector/theme, or project lifecycle management. The server's tool surface is severely incomplete for its intended focus.

Resources