Skip to main content
Glama

Ipify

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses extensive behavioral details beyond annotations: filing returns a claim_token when no account is present, passing the token reads the status, rate-limiting to 5 per identifier per day, free usage not counting against quota, and that the team reads digests daily. While annotations indicate readOnlyHint=false, the description accurately characterizes it as a non-destructive feedback submission, adding significant operational context without contradiction.

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 relatively long but every sentence earns its place: it covers purpose, use cases, exclusions, token workflow, rate limits, and quota. Information is front-loaded with the core purpose and progressively adds operational details. There is no fluff or redundancy; the length is justified by the tool's nuanced behavior.

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?

The tool has no output schema, so the description correctly explains return behavior: 'Filing without an account returns a claim_token; pass it back later... to read whether it was fixed and what changed.' It also fully addresses context (which tools/packs), rate limits, and the distinction from other servers. For a feedback tool with this complexity, the description is complete enough for reliable invocation.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is already 100% with detailed parameter descriptions, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful usage guidance beyond the schema: it instructs not to paste end-user prompts, describes the claim_token round-trip workflow, and clarifies the message format (1-2 sentences typical). This significantly enhances the agent's ability to compose correct inputs, exceeding the 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?

The description states exactly what the tool does: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' This is a specific verb+resource (send feedback to Pipeworx team) and clearly distinguishes from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx by focusing on reporting issues rather than querying. The boundary that it is ONLY for tools served by this Pipeworx connection further disambiguates it from 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use criteria: '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 provides a clear exclusion and alternative: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server... file it with that server instead.' This is textbook usage guidance with alternatives.

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

All Ipify 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 tools overlap conceptually, e.g., ask_pipeworx / ask_pipeworx_beta / ask_pipeworx_grounded / deep_research all perform data retrieval, and bet_research / polymarket_edges / polymarket_arbitrage cover prediction markets with unclear boundaries. This overlap forces agents to carefully read descriptions to pick the right tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming is mostly snake_case but inconsistent in pattern: some are verb_noun (compare_entities), some are noun_verb (ai_visibility_check), and some are bare nouns (ipv4) or bare verbs (forget). While readable, the lack of a uniform pattern reduces predictability.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is high for a single server, especially given the server name 'Ipify' which implies a simple IP lookup service. The broad range (from memory ops to prediction market analysis) suggests the tool set is a collection of utilities rather than a coherent, scoped API.

Completeness2/5

The tool set lacks focus: for a server named 'Ipify', basic IP geolocation or ASN lookup is missing. As a general toolkit, it covers many areas superficially but has significant gaps (e.g., no tools for updating or deleting data, no domain-specific lifecycle).

Resources