Skip to main content
Glama

Data Mesa

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations only provide all-false hints, so the description carries the transparency burden. It adds useful behavioral context: rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day, free and doesn't count against quota, returns a claim_token for follow-up, and team reads digests daily. It doesn't fully describe the side effect of creating a feedback record, but the main behavior is evident and no contradictions exist.

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 long but information-dense. Every sentence earns its place: purpose, usage guidance, exclusions, token flow, rate limits, quota info. It is front-loaded with the core 'send feedback' function and structured to avoid ambiguity.

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?

With 4 parameters, nested context object, no output schema, and many siblings, the description provides comprehensive guidance. It covers what counts as valid feedback, how to follow up via claim_token, what the response contains for that token, and operational details like rate limits. The tool's full workflow is explained without needing an output schema.

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?

Input schema covers 100% of parameters with descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantics beyond schema: instructs not to paste end-user prompts, to describe issues in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs, and clarifies how claim_token is used for reading prior reports. This exceeds the schema's basic parameter 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 opens with 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist,' clearly stating the tool's purpose with specific verb and resource. It distinguishes itself from sibling ask/research tools by focusing on feedback about Pipeworx's own tools, not general queries.

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 criteria: bug reports for wrong/stale data, feature/data_gap for missing capabilities, praise for good work. Includes explicit exclusion: feedback about tools from other MCP servers should be filed there, not here. This gives clear alternatives.

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

All Data Mesa 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tool groups have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx variants, polymarket research tools, visibility checks), despite detailed descriptions. An agent may struggle to choose between closely related options.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix snake_case verb_noun patterns (e.g., ai_visibility_check, compare_entities) with noun-heavy compound names (e.g., polymarket_arbitrage, deep_research) and single-word names (e.g., query, recall). No consistent convention.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the surface is heavy for a research/data server. Many tools are variants of core capabilities (ask_pipeworx, polymarket edges), suggesting consolidation would improve usability.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a broad range: data research, prediction markets, entity profiles, monitoring. However, the abundance of specialized variants and gaps in unified workflows (e.g., needing separate tools for simple vs grounded queries) reduce completeness.

Resources