Skip to main content
Glama

Data Michigan

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. 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), thorough=8 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus a contradictions[] scan across findings)."New 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)."
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / depth / description
      Previous value: -"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3, standard=5 (default), thorough=8 (paid plans). \"thorough\" also runs a second ITERATIVE hop — a planner inspects the first-pass findings/gaps and chases the most valuable leads or recovers gaps, resolving multi-step questions in one call."New 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), thorough=8 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus a contradictions[] scan across findings)."
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / depth / description
      Previous value: -"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3, standard=5 (default), thorough=8 (paid plans)."New value: +"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3, standard=5 (default), thorough=8 (paid plans). \"thorough\" also runs a second ITERATIVE hop — a planner inspects the first-pass findings/gaps and chases the most valuable leads or recovers gaps, resolving multi-step questions in one call."
  5. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations by disclosing account and paid-plan requirements, parallel tool routing, gap handling, contradiction detection, citation behavior, non-fabrication guarantees, semantic excerpting, and expected latency. These details meaningfully shape an agent's expectations for a long-running research call.

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, with the account requirement and fallback tool front-loaded before the core function. It earns most of its length given the tool's complexity and lack of an output schema, though a single dense paragraph with many parentheticals could be organized more cleanly.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description fully covers prerequisites, return packet contents, citation semantics, gap/contradiction behavior, iteration behavior per depth tier, and latency expectations. An agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret its results.

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 the baseline is 3, but the description adds useful semantic nuance: 'question' supports broad/multi-part natural language because decomposition is the point, and 'depth' is tied to number of facets, hops, and paid tier. This goes slightly beyond the enum descriptions by clarifying the intended usage pattern.

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 specific verb and resource: grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's structured data sources in one call. It clearly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from single-lookup tools by naming ask_pipeworx as the alternative for simple lookups.

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: best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data, and explicitly says to use ask_pipeworx instead for a single lookup or when not signed in. It also explains the depth tiers and paid requirements, leaving no ambiguity about when to choose this tool.

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

All Data Michigan 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There are multiple severe overlap clusters. ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same 5,578 tools, and ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly states it 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly' — a direct ambiguity. The six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research form another dense, hard-to-distinguish cluster, and entity_profile/recent_changes/compare_entities/resolve_entity all have overlapping entity-investigation purposes. The long descriptions help but an agent would frequently misselect.

Naming Consistency3/5

The dominant families are internally consistent (polymarket_* prefix, ask_pipeworx_* suffix family, and the verb-based remember/recall/forget), which aids navigation. However, the overall set mixes several conventions: single-word nouns (query, datasets, metadata, recall), verb_noun compounds (validate_claim, generate_llms_txt), and domain_noun names (entity_profile, polymarket_edges). Readable, but there is no unified pattern across the server.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is clearly over the 25-threshold for heaviness, and several earn little distinct value: ask_pipeworx_beta is a live duplicate of ask_pipeworx, the five-algorithm Polymarket family could be consolidated, and meta/utility tools (suggest_questions, discover_tools, pipeworx_trending, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency) feel bolted on rather than essential. The breadth of the data domain justifies some size, but the redundancy and tangents push it into bloat.

Completeness3/5

Within its core sub-domains the surface is fairly complete: company research has resolve→profile/compare→recent_changes→validate_claim as a full lifecycle, subscriptions have subscribe/unsubscribe/list/recent_alerts, and memory has remember/recall/forget. The Polymarket workflow is especially thorough (detect→verify→fill-risk→track-decay). However, the server's stated identity ('Data Michigan') is barely served — the Michigan Open Data surface is only search/schema/query with no update or write path — and the scatter of unrelated tools (npm dependency scan, llms.txt generation) makes the overall purpose incoherent, so gaps are hard to evaluate.

Resources