Skip to main content
Glama

Diffbot

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Despite annotations being all false, the description discloses rate limits ('Rate-limited to 5 per identifier per day'), the claim_token flow for later status checks, and that it is 'Free; doesn't count against your tool-call quota.' This exceeds what annotations convey.

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 dense with every sentence contributing useful information—purpose, use cases, exclusions, claim_token mechanics, and rate limits. It is slightly longer than minimal but well-organized and front-loaded with the core purpose.

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 no output schema, the description explains return behavior ('Filing without an account returns a claim_token') and how to later retrieve resolution status. It also mentions team reading cadence, making it 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 descriptions already cover all 4 parameters (100% coverage), giving the description a baseline of 3. It adds the standalone claim_token usage pattern and instructs users to 'Describe the issue in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs — don't paste the end-user's prompt,' enriching parameter understanding beyond the schema.

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,' a specific verb+resource pairing. It distinguishes from siblings by scoping to 'tools served by this Pipeworx connection' and contrasting with other MCP servers.

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 conditions: '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 exclusion: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server ... file it with that server instead.'

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

All Diffbot 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
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple research entry points (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and company analysis tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, bet_research) overlap heavily; the five polymarket_* tools also require careful reading to distinguish. Descriptions are detailed, but an agent must parse long disambiguation text to avoid mis-selection.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names mix verb-first (list_subscriptions, validate_claim, remember), noun-first (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage), product-prefixed (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_feedback), and brand-prefixed (diffbot_company, diffbot_extract). No consistent verb_noun pattern across the set; polymarket_* and pipeworx_* prefixes are internally consistent but the overall scheme is chaotic.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well beyond the 3-15 sweet spot and in the 'too many' range. Many tools are meta-variants (4 ask_pipeworx flavors, 5 polymarket tools, 2 AI-visibility tools) that could be consolidated.

Completeness3/5

The data-research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription subdomains are each fairly complete at a meta level, with few dead ends. Gaps include no subscription update (delete + recreate required), no explicit memory update, and no direct way to execute an arbitrary discovered Pipeworx tool aside from routing through ask_pipeworx.

Resources