Skip to main content
Glama

Open Elevation

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

With no useful safety annotations (all hints false), the description carries the transparency burden and largely succeeds. It discloses rate limiting ('5 per identifier per day'), the claim_token read-back mechanism, daily digests, roadmap impact, and that it is free/quota-free. It does not fully describe the response shape beyond the token, but this is acceptable given the simple feedback use case.

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 long but information-dense, covering purpose, exclusions, usage nuances, and operational details. It front-loads the core purpose and usage, though the back half about daily digests and quota could be tightened. Every sentence contributes either to correct invocation or to setting expectations, so it is reasonable for the tool's complexity.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

For a tool with no required parameters, a nested optional context object, and no output schema, the description covers all necessary invocation modes: submitting feedback and reading a previous report via claim_token. It also addresses edge cases (different MCP server, unknown tool names) and limitations (rate limit). It could explicitly mention what happens when an account is linked, but the core agent guidance is complete.

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?

The schema already has 100% coverage with detailed descriptions for every parameter, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra semantic value by mapping type values to real-world triggers ('bug = something broke'), instructing users not to paste end-user prompts, and reinforcing the special claim_token mode where it must be passed 'with no other arguments.'

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 a specific action ('Tell the Pipeworx team') and resource ('Pipeworx team'), then enumerates exact use cases (bug, feature, data_gap, praise). It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by scoping feedback to 'tools served by this Pipeworx connection' and naming alternative action for 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 provides explicit 'when to use' conditions tied to type enum values, and an explicit exclusion: 'if the tool came from a different MCP server ... file it with that server instead.' It also offers a disambiguation test ('Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists'), which is unusually clear guidance.

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

All Open Elevation 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The tool set covers many unrelated domains (elevation, finance, prediction markets, AI visibility, etc.) with multiple overlapping tools per domain (e.g., three 'ask_pipeworx' variants, several 'polymarket' tools). An agent would struggle to distinguish which tool to use for a given task.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names follow no consistent pattern: some use snake_case with vague verbs (e.g., 'process', 'run'), others use descriptive but unrelated prefixes ('ai_', 'ask_pipeworx_', 'polymarket_'). There is no uniform verb_noun structure.

Tool Count3/5

With 32 tools, the count is reasonable for a large server, but the vast majority are irrelevant to the server's stated purpose (elevation). This mismatch makes the count inappropriate.

Completeness1/5

The server name 'Open Elevation' implies a focus on elevation data, yet only 2 of 32 tools (get_elevation, get_elevations) are related. There are severe gaps: no area elevation, no geocoding, no terrain analysis. The tool surface is largely off-topic.

Resources