Skip to main content
Glama

Pub Dev

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?

Annotations provide no safety hints (all false), so the description must disclose behavior fully. It does: filing returns a claim_token, you can later read the response by passing that token alone, the team reads digests daily, rate-limiting is 5 per identifier per day, and it's free and doesn't count against quota. No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Though the description is longer than average, every sentence earns its place. It starts with the main purpose, then usage cases, exclusion criteria, formatting guidance, token workflow, and policies. No fluff or redundancy; the structure is logical and front-loaded.

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?

There is no output schema, but the description explains what to expect (claim_token) and how to follow up. The nested context object is sufficiently documented in the schema, and the description adds the important scoping constraint (only this Pipeworx connection) and rate-limit info. Nothing critical is missing for an agent to use this correctly.

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 100%, but the description adds critical usage context beyond the schema: it explains the claim_token dual-mode workflow (file vs read), specifies that message should be 1-2 sentences typical and not include the user's prompt, and maps type categories to real scenarios. This goes well beyond the baseline schema 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 a clear, specific purpose: 'Tell the Pipeworx team something is broken, missing, or needs to exist.' It names the resource (Pipeworx team) and the action (feedback), and distinguishes itself from the sibling research tools by focusing on reporting issues rather than retrieving information.

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 guidance by categorizing bug, feature/data_gap, and praise scenarios. It also provides a clear when-not-to-use rule: if the tool came from a different MCP server, file with that server instead. It even includes a fallback ('Not sure? Pipeworx tool names are the ones this connection lists') and formatting instructions, making it unambiguous for an agent.

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

All Pub Dev 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have clear functional boundaries, but there is meaningful overlap at the top level: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded share one routing pipeline, and ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx. The six polymarket_* tools also form a dense family where an agent must read long descriptions to distinguish arbitrage scanning from edge detection from fill-risk evaluation.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are uniformly lowercase snake_case and mostly follow verb_noun or domain-prefix conventions, which makes the set much more predictable than its count suggests. Minor deviations exist: ask_pipeworx variants are product-noun phrases, polymarket_edges is a noun phrase rather than a verb-led tool, and pairs like polymarket_edges vs polymarket_edge_tracker are easy to misread.

Tool Count2/5

With 31 tools, this server is above the 25+ threshold and feels overloaded for a single MCP surface. It mixes broad data research, prediction-market analysis, memory, subscriptions, feedback, and niche utilities like generate_llms_txt, so the set is more like several related servers merged together.

Completeness4/5

The core workflow is well covered: discovery, single-answer routing, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, comparison, change tracking, subscription lifecycle, and even memory primitives. Missing are minor lifecycle refinements such as updating an existing subscription, and the number of overlapping entry points makes it slightly harder to guarantee the agent will always choose the intended path.

Resources