Skip to main content
Glama

disify

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. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the read-only/idempotent annotations, the description discloses account and paid-tier requirements, the absence of a permanent cache, typical freshness expectations, the gaps[]/contradictions[] behavior, the 'never invented' guarantee, latency ranges, and semantic excerpting of large records. No contradiction with the annotations is present.

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 information-dense and front-loads the account requirement and alternative tool before the mechanism. It is slightly bloated by repeated 'not open-web search' phrasing and generic authorization boilerplate, which keeps it from being perfectly concise.

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 is remarkably complete: it covers input style, depth trade-offs, output packet contents, citations, gaps/contradictions, latency, account requirements, and coverage semantics. An agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters thoroughly, including depth levels, the paid thorough tier, and the contradictions scan. The description adds latency context and example phrasings, but it does not materially expand parameter meaning beyond what the schema provides, so the high-coverage baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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 that the tool performs grounded multi-source research over 1,517 structured data sources in one call, decomposing questions into facets and routing them to tools in parallel. It also explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx, so an agent can tell what deep_research uniquely does.

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 guidance on when to use the tool: broad/multi-part questions over structured data, with concrete examples. It also names the alternative, ask_pipeworx, for single lookups and for users who are not signed in, and warns that web-search-answerable questions are not what this tool does.

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

All disify 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have nearly identical or heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical, and the six Polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread, bet_research) all involve finding/analyzing prediction-market opportunities. deep_research and ask_pipeworx also overlap as general query routers, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence is another confusable pair.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case and are descriptive, but verb placement is inconsistent: some are verb-first (check_domain, compare_entities, resolve_entity), others are verb-last or noun-like (ai_visibility_check, entity_profile, pipeworx_trending, bet_research). There is no chaotic camelCase mix, but the pattern is not predictable enough to guess a tool's behavior from its name.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is far above the typical well-scoped range and the set spans multiple unrelated domains (data lookup, prediction markets, AI visibility, memory, subscriptions, email/domain validation) that have no cohesive purpose under the 'disify' name. Most tools are not related to domain or email checking, making the count feel like a grab bag rather than a focused toolkit.

Completeness2/5

For a server named 'disify', the core domain-validation surface is minimal (only check_domain and validate_email) and misses obvious operations like WHOIS lookup or breach/debounce checks. As a general data toolset it is broad but shallow in each area, with gaps such as entity_profile only supporting US public companies and no update/delete operations for most data resources.

Resources