Skip to main content
Glama

Bart

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Deep Research

deep_research
Read-onlyIdempotent

ACCOUNT REQUIRED (free — sign in via GitHub at https://pipeworx.io/signup; depth:"thorough" needs a paid plan). If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead — it works on every tier. Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1517 STRUCTURED data sources (SEC filings, FRED/BLS economics, FDA, USPTO patents, markets, science, government records, etc.) in ONE call — this is NOT open-web search. Decomposes your question into focused facets, routes each to the right one of 5,798 tools IN PARALLEL, and returns a findings packet: verbatim evidence + confidence + source + fetched_at + a stable pipeworx:// citation per finding, with explicit gaps[] for facets the data couldn't answer (never invented). Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data ("compare X and Y's regulatory + financial exposure", "research the filings + market picture for ACME"). For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx (one LLM call, not many). For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS / "what's the world saying about X" topics, prefer ask_pipeworx — it routes to live news APIs and the *-news-feeds packs; deep_research returns mostly empty gaps[] when the topic isn't in the structured catalog. Second-hop iteration: depth:"standard" re-angles unanswered gaps (gap recovery); depth:"thorough" additionally chases the best leads from the first pass — so multi-step questions resolve in one call. Every finding carries a hop field and a citation_uri — a resolvable pipeworx:// record URI, present only when the source emits one that resources/read can actually serve, so a citation you get back is always fetchable. "standard" and "thorough" also return contradictions[] flagging findings that disagree. Large records are semantically excerpted to the passages relevant to each facet (not head-truncated), so answers deep in a long filing/series aren't missed. Expect 15-60s (thorough with its follow-up + contradiction pass: up to ~90s).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
depthNoHow many facets to research in parallel: quick=3 (single hop), standard=3 (default; adds a gap-recovery hop that re-angles unanswered facets + a contradictions[] scan across findings), thorough=6 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus the contradictions[] scan).
questionYesThe research question, in natural language. Broad/multi-part is fine — decomposition is the point.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / depth / description
      Previous value: -"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3 (single hop), standard=5 (default; adds a gap-recovery hop that re-angles unanswered facets + a contradictions[] scan across findings), thorough=8 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus the contradictions[] scan)."New value: +"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3 (single hop), standard=3 (default; adds a gap-recovery hop that re-angles unanswered facets + a contradictions[] scan across findings), thorough=6 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus the contradictions[] scan)."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint, the description adds substantial behavioral context: auth tiers, parallel decomposition across 5,798 tools, the findings packet shape, explicit gaps[], contradictions[], citation reachability, semantic excerpting, latency expectations, and even a measured hallucination rate. This is far beyond the structured hints.

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 densely useful, front-loading the account requirement and then progressing from core behavior to depth semantics to output details. It is somewhat repetitive (thorough's paid status and contradictions behavior appear in both the first paragraph and depth explanation), which keeps it from a 5.

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 fully documents the return experience: verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citation_uri, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, and latency. It also covers prerequisites and the key alternative tool, so an agent is not left guessing about any operational detail.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description restates depth semantics that the schema already covers (quick=3/standard=3/thorough=6, hops, contradictions[]) and adds no new parameter-level meaning, aside from reinforcing that the question should be natural-language and broad/multi-part.

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 names a specific verb and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1517 STRUCTURED data sources' in one call. It explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx, so an agent can tell what this tool is and is not without opening sibling schemas.

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?

It states exactly when to use this tool ('Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data') and gives explicit alternatives for other cases: 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead' and 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead.' This is unambiguous routing guidance.

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

All Bart 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but the three ask_pipeworx variants (stable, beta, grounded) overlap significantly in functionality, as do the Polymarket tools (bet_research, arbitrage, edges, etc.), which could cause an agent to misselect without careful reading of descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming follows multiple styles: verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), domain first (polymarket_arbitrage, bart_departures), and single words (remember, forget). There is no consistent pattern, making the set feel disjointed.

Tool Count3/5

35 tools is on the heavy side for a single server. While each tool has a defined role, the count suggests potential for consolidation (e.g., merging ask_pipeworx variants or Polymarket tools). The server's broad scope partially justifies the count.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a wide range of functionalities: structured querying, entity lookup, comparison, fact-checking, subscription management, memory, and domain-specific tools for BART and Polymarket. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct API for some data sources), but overall it feels comprehensive.

Resources