Skip to main content
Glama
Pipelex

Pipelex MCP Server

by Pipelex
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Remote

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v0.1.7

  • Disambiguation5/5

    Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose: health check, listing pipes, building a pipeline, and running a pipeline. No overlap between any pair.

    Naming Consistency4/5

    Most tools use snake_case with verb_noun or noun_verb pattern (list_available_pipes, pipe_builder, pipe_runner). 'health' is a single noun without underscore, creating slight inconsistency but still clear.

    Tool Count5/5

    4 tools is well-scoped for a pipeline management server: health, list, build, run. Each tool serves a necessary function without redundancy.

    Completeness4/5

    Covers the core lifecycle: listing available pipes, building a pipeline, and running it. Missing possibly a tool to inspect a specific pipe or delete one, but not essential for basic operation.

  • Average 3/5 across 4 of 4 tools scored. Lowest: 1.7/5.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • Last stable release on
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI is passing

  • This repository is licensed under MIT License.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior1/5

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

    With no annotations, description carries full burden but only provides a vague action. Contradicts schema about optionality, and no disclosure of side effects, permissions, or outcomes.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness3/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is very short (10 words), but conciseness is undermined by inaccuracy and lack of necessary information. Front-loads purpose but not effectively.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness1/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Despite an output schema existing, the description fails to provide essential context for a 3-param tool with required inputs. No behavioral or usage context, and schema contradiction makes it unreliable.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters1/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema description coverage is 0%, and description fails to explain the three required parameters (plx_content, specific_pipe_code_if_plx_content_has_no_main_pipe, inputs_json). The one mention of PLX content contradicts the schema.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose2/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description states 'Run a Pipelex pipeline (optionally with PLX content)', but the input schema lists plx_content as required, creating a contradiction. This misleads about whether PLX content is mandatory.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    No guidance on when to use this tool versus siblings like pipe_builder or list_available_pipes. No context about prerequisites or scenarios.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    No annotations provided, so description carries full burden. It only states 'do not modify it', hinting at a non-modifying behavior but does not disclose side effects, errors, or idempotence. Minimal behavioral info.

    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?

    Short and to the point, but the 'do not modify it' clause is somewhat confusing. Could be slightly more front-loaded, but overall efficient.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness2/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Despite having an output schema, description does not clarify return value or process. Parameter 'untouched_user_request' is unexplained. Insufficient for a tool that builds pipelines from NL.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters1/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    Schema coverage is 0% and description does not explain the sole parameter 'untouched_user_request'. No hint about what to provide or format. Baseline compensation not met.

    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 action: 'Build a Pipelex pipeline from a natural language request'. It uses a specific verb and resource, and is distinct from siblings like 'health', 'list_available_pipes', and 'pipe_runner'.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    No explicit guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. The 'do not modify it' part is vague and not helpful for selection. Lacks context such as prerequisites or exclusions.

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

  • Behavior2/5

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

    With no annotations, the description carries full burden. 'Simple health check' provides minimal behavioral detail—does not disclose what the check entails, whether it is idempotent, or what side effects (if any) exist. For a read-only operation, this is acceptable but not informative.

    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?

    Four words with no extraneous information. Perfectly concise for a simple health check tool.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness4/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given no parameters, an output schema exists, and the tool is a simple health check, the description is sufficient to understand its purpose. The agent can rely on the output schema for return values.

    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?

    The tool has zero parameters and schema coverage is 100%, so the description does not need to explain parameters. Baseline is 4 for zero parameters, and the description adds nothing extra, which is acceptable.

    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 'Simple health check' clearly indicates the tool performs a health check operation. It is distinct from sibling tools (list_available_pipes, pipe_builder, pipe_runner) which deal with pipeline management, so an agent can easily differentiate.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives. Sibling tools suggest different purposes, but the description offers no explicit context or restrictions.

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

  • Behavior3/5

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

    No annotations are provided, so the description bears full responsibility. It indicates a read-only listing operation, which is obvious, but lacks details on authentication, rate limits, or side effects.

    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 a single sentence with no unnecessary words, efficiently communicating the tool's purpose.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    With no parameters and no annotations, the description is minimal but functional. Given an output schema exists, it does not need to specify return values, but it could mention what information is returned (e.g., names or IDs).

    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?

    The tool has zero parameters, so the description does not need to add parameter information. Baseline score of 4 applies.

    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 'List' and identifies the resource 'available pipes in the Pipelex library', clearly distinguishing it from sibling tools like 'pipe_builder' and 'pipe_runner'.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines2/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    No guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives; it simply states what it does without context or exclusion criteria.

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

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

pipelex-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

pipelex-mcp MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/Pipelex/pipelex-mcp'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server