Skip to main content
Glama

Data Dc

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?

Since all annotations are false and carry no safety signals, the description carries the full burden. It discloses rate limiting (5 per identifier per day), quota impact (free, doesn't count), return value (claim_token), follow-up mechanism, and human processes (team reads daily, signal affects roadmap). This is rich, honest behavioral context beyond structured fields.

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 dense but every sentence earns its place: purpose, use cases, scope restriction, message guidance, token flow, rate limit, and quota. Information is front-loaded and there is no redundancy. The structure flows logically from what → when → how → consequences.

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 explains the primary return (claim_token) and subsequent read of the token. It covers scope limitations, rate limits, and message format expectations. All four parameters are covered by schema descriptions, and the description adds the behavioral context needed to invoke correctly. Complete for a feedback tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the claim_token round-trip flow and emphasizing context should reference Pipeworx tools/packs, which reinforces the context parameter semantics. It also clarifies that context is optional and only relevant for tool/pack/vertical. This elevates it above 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?

Description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('Tell the Pipeworx team') and enumerates the feedback categories (broken, missing, praise). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by explicitly scoping to Pipeworx connection tools and framing feedback as bug/feature/data_gap/praise, unlike ask_pipeworx which answers 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).' It also gives a clear exclusion: if the tool came from a different MCP server, file it with that server instead. This fully covers usage scenarios and alternatives.

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

All Data Dc 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical; multiple Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) share similar edge-detection and arbitrage goals, creating potential confusion for an agent.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern using underscores (e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity). There are minor deviations like generate_llms_txt and scan_competitor_ai_presence, but overall the naming is predictable and clear.

Tool Count3/5

With 34 tools, the server is on the heavier side but still justified given its broad scope (data querying, entity profiles, monitoring, research, etc.). The count feels slightly high, but each tool serves a specific purpose; however, some consolidation could reduce redundancy.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of tasks: data lookup, entity profiling, comparison, monitoring, memory, research, and claim verification. Minor gaps exist, such as lack of explicit data source listing or user preference management, but the core workflows are well-supported.

Resources