Skip to main content
Glama

Visualcrossing

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?

Annotations are all false, offering no safety signals, but the description compensates by disclosing rate limits, claim_token mechanics for later status reads, daily team reviews, and that it's free with no quota impact. This goes well beyond annotations.

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 but every sentence serves a purpose—no fluff. It is somewhat long, yet appropriate given the need to cover exclusions, token mechanics, and rate limits. Front-loads the main purpose before going into details.

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?

For a feedback tool with no output schema, the description explains the return (claim_token) and follow-up behavior, along with constraints (rate limit, MCP server scope). It fully covers the tool's purpose, usage, and limitations, making it complete for an agent.

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%, so parameters are fully described. The description adds extra meaning by explaining the claim_token workflow ('pass it back later...' with no other arguments) and giving concrete type examples, enhancing beyond schema alone.

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 clearly states the tool's purpose: telling the Pipeworx team about broken, missing, or needed features. It distinguishes itself from sibling research tools by being the feedback channel, with specific use cases (bug, feature, data_gap, praise).

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 guidance (wrong/stale data, missing tool, praise) and when-not-to-use (tools from different MCP servers) with an alternative (file with that server). Also advises how to frame feedback in terms of Pipeworx tools, ensuring proper usage.

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

All Visualcrossing 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. Even tools with overlapping domains (e.g., ask_pipeworx and deep_research) are differentiated by use case: single lookups vs multi-faceted research. Weather, Polymarket, memory, and subscription tools are completely separate, and descriptions clarify any potential confusion.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names mostly follow a verb_noun pattern, but some are single verbs (forget, recall) or noun_noun (entity_profile, weather_timeline). The mix is noticeable but still predictable and readable, with consistent snake_case formatting throughout.

Tool Count4/5

With 34 tools, the server is large but each tool serves a specific function within the broad data-access domain. The count is justified given the wide range of domains (weather, company data, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, etc.), though it is on the higher end for typical MCP servers.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a wide range of operations: data retrieval, comparison, fact-checking, weather, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and meta-tools. There are no obvious gaps for the intended use of a unified data gateway, though some niche data sources might not be directly addressed.

Resources