Skip to main content
Glama

Data Va

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 1506 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 5,767 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?

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive hints, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: latency expectations (15-60s, thorough up to ~90s), the honesty guarantee ('never invented' via gaps[]), contradiction detection behavior, semantic excerpting instead of head-truncation, and the citation fetchability promise (citation_uri only present when resolvable via resources/read). It also discloses the open-world scope limitation (structured catalog only, not live open web). No contradiction with annotations exists; openWorldHint is consistent with the multi-source external data access described.

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 every sentence carries load-bearing information for a complex tool: auth gating, scope boundary, alternatives, per-depth behavior, return packet structure, and timing. It front-loads the most decision-critical constraint (account requirement + fallback) and uses visual signposts ('NOT', 'ACCOUNT REQUIRED', 'IN PARALLEL') for scannability. Minor redundancy — ask_pipeworx is mentioned twice — and the depth-mode explanation partially repeats the schema, which prevents 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 carries full responsibility for describing the return value — and it does thoroughly: findings packet with verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, stable pipeworx:// citations, explicit gaps[], contradictions[], and a hop field. It also covers auth prerequisites, latency, scope limitations, and the behavior on large records. Nothing an agent needs to invoke this tool correctly or interpret its results is missing.

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. The description adds meaningful value beyond the schema: the paid tier constraint on 'thorough', per-mode latency expectations, hop/gap-recovery mechanics, and which modes surface contradictions[]. It also confirms 'question' accepts 'broad/multi-part' phrasing, reinforcing the schema's 'decomposition is the point' note. This is more than the schema alone provides, so 4 is warranted rather than a bare baseline 3.

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 research across 'Pipeworx's 1506 STRUCTURED data sources', with a concrete behavioral outline (decomposes question into facets, routes to 5,767 tools in parallel, returns a findings packet). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by stating 'this is NOT open-web search' and naming ask_pipeworx as the single-lookup/current-news alternative. This is unambiguous and leaves no doubt about what the tool is for.

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?

Usage conditions are explicit: 'ACCOUNT REQUIRED' with a signup URL, 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead', 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data', and clear exclusions — 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx' and 'For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS... prefer ask_pipeworx'. It even tiers the depth parameter with a cost gate ('thorough' needs a paid plan). The agent is fully routed to the right tool in every scenario.

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

All Data Va 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters are near-duplicates or easy to confuse: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical (beta currently matches stable exactly), while polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and bet_research all scan prediction-market opportunities with overlapping outputs. entity_profile/compare_entities/recent_changes and ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence add further redundancy. Despite detailed descriptions, the boundaries require careful reading, so an agent is likely to misselect.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and readable, with useful prefixes like ask_, polymarket_, pipeworx_, and scan_. However, conventions are mixed: verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, list_subscriptions, resolve_entity) coexists with bare nouns (datasets, metadata, query) and noun-first compounds (entity_profile, bet_research, deep_research). There is no single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is above the 25-tool threshold, and the set spans multiple unrelated domains such as data routing, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, Virginia Open Data, AI visibility, and npm dependency checks. Several tools are effectively wrappers or near-overlaps that could be consolidated, e.g., ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence and polymarket_edges vs polymarket_arbitrage. The surface feels bloated for a single server.

Completeness4/5

Within its main sub-domains the set is solid: memory has remember/recall/forget, subscriptions have subscribe/unsubscribe/list/recent_alerts, research has resolve_entity/compare_entities/entity_profile/recent_changes/validate_claim, and Polymarket has detection/arbitrage/fill-risk/edge-tracking. Minor gaps exist — no tool to fetch a raw pipeworx:// record, no write/update for Virginia Open Data, and no trade execution for prediction markets — but these do not create dead ends for a research-focused agent.

Resources