Skip to main content
Glama

Diff

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnly/idempotent, but the description adds concrete behavioral commitments: decomposing questions into facets, parallel routing to 5,798 tools, returning verbatim evidence with confidence/source/fetched_at, explicit gaps[], never inventing findings, contradictions[], semantic excerpting, and latency expectations. It also discloses account and paid-tier requirements. There is no contradiction with the 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 front-loaded, placing account requirements and the sibling fallback first. It is somewhat overlong and repeats depth/contradiction details, though for the tool's complexity nearly every sentence carries operational weight. It earns a 4 rather than 5 due to minor redundancy.

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 the full burden of explaining return values, and it does so thoroughly: findings packet contents, citation_uri semantics, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, excerpting, and runtime. Missing edge-case failure modes are minor given the level of detail provided.

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?

The schema covers both parameters, and the description adds operational detail to depth: what quick/standard/thorough each do, the paid-plan gate on thorough, and latency implications. It also clarifies that the question parameter accepts broad/multi-part natural-language queries and that decomposition is the intended behavior. This materially exceeds the 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 explicit purpose: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1517 STRUCTURED data sources,' and immediately distinguishes itself from open-web search and single-lookup tools. It names the exact deliverable (findings packet) and intended question scope, making sibling differentiation clear. This is far beyond a tautological restatement.

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 gives an explicit sign-in prerequisite with a fallback: 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead — it works on every tier.' It states best use ('broad/multi-part questions over structured data') and directly routes single lookups to ask_pipeworx, giving the agent clear when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All Diff 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

Several clusters of tools are hard to tell apart: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all serve overlapping query paths, and the five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research cover heavily overlapping prediction-market analysis. Some pairs are nearly identical in purpose, like ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence, and the descriptions must be read closely to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency2/5

All names are snake_case, but the naming style is highly inconsistent across the set: some use verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt, resolve_entity), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback, recent_alerts), and some use a vendor prefix without a clear verb (polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker). The pattern shifts between domain-specific prefixes (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*) and generic verbs with no predictable rule.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is too many for a cohesive server, especially when the surface sprawls across unrelated domains: data querying, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, npm scanning, AI visibility checks, and llms.txt generation. Many tools could be consolidated (the ask_pipeworx family, the polymarket family, the entity-comparison family), which would make the count feel more justified.

Completeness4/5

Within its apparent purpose as a broad data-and-research assistant, the tool set is fairly complete: it covers entity resolution, lookup, grounded verification, deep research, comparisons, memory CRUD, subscription lifecycle, discovery, and feedback. Minor gaps exist, such as no direct tool to fetch a record by its pipeworx:// citation URI (search_within implies fetching happens elsewhere) and no evident update operation for stored memories beyond save/delete.

Resources