Skip to main content
Glama

Leetcode

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?

Annotations provide no safety hints beyond all-false flags, so the description carries the burden and excels: it discloses rate limiting ('5 per identifier per day'), the free/no-quota nature, the claim_token behavior for anonymous filing, and the daily digest processing. No contradiction with annotations; the description adds substantial behavioral context.

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 every sentence earns its place. It is front-loaded with the core purpose, then systematically covers exclusions, workflow, rate limits, and policy. No filler or redundant rewording of the schema; the structure is logical and dense.

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 must explain return values and it does: anonymous filing returns a claim_token that can be later passed back to read resolution status. It covers the full feedback lifecycle, rate limits, quota exemption, and reporting guidelines—complete for a tool of this complexity.

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 coverage is 100% and each parameter is already described well. The description adds workflow-level semantics beyond the schema: it explains how claim_token is used to read follow-up status, and clarifies the expected message content ('in terms of Pipeworx tools/packs'). This goes beyond the baseline, though the schema already handles the core parameter meanings.

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 a clear verb ('Tell the Pipeworx team') and resource ('Pipeworx feedback') with specific use cases (bug, feature/data_gap, praise). It explicitly distinguishes this tool from any other MCP server's feedback mechanism, making its scope unambiguous even without sibling overlap.

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 (wrong data, missing tool, praise) and when-not-to-use (feedback for other MCP servers) guidance, including the alternative action ('file it with that server instead'). Also advises against pasting end-user prompts and explains the claim-token return flow, leaving no ambiguity about usage context.

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

All Leetcode 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping roles: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all serve the same lookup purpose, and there are six different Polymarket tools with similar names and functions. The inclusion of a large unrelated data platform alongside a few LeetCode tools makes selection additionally confusing.

Naming Consistency4/5

Almost all tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, list_subscriptions, etc.). Minor exceptions like 'problem' and 'daily_question' are still readable and don't break the overall predictability.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is far too many for a server named 'Leetcode' — the vast majority are unrelated Pipeworx data, prediction-market, and memory tools. Even as a general data server the count is heavy, and for the apparent LeetCode purpose it is severely over-scoped.

Completeness2/5

The LeetCode-specific tools cover basic user stats and problem details but lack problem listing/search, submissions, or any interaction beyond read-only queries. The Pipeworx side is extensive but irrelevant to the server's stated purpose, so the core domain has significant gaps.

Resources