Skip to main content
Glama

Fac

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already declare the tool read-only and idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral detail: parallel decomposition, gap[] reporting, ambiguity handling, contradictions[], hop fields, fetchable citation URIs, semantic excerpting, and expected latency. It also clearly discloses account requirements, so the safety and side-effect profile is fully transparent.

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 and information-rich, with almost no filler, and it is front-loaded with the most critical gate (account requirement and alternative tool). However, it is quite long and contains minor redundancy, such as mentioning the paid plan for 'thorough' both at the start and in the depth explanation.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return format: findings packet with verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citations, gaps[], contradictions[], and hop fields. It also covers prerequisites, source scope, depth semantics, latency, and when to choose a sibling, making it complete for a complex tool.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaning beyond the schema by explaining how 'depth' values behave (quick=3 facets, standard adds a gap-recovery hop, thorough adds a paid iterative pass) and how they affect latency. It also clarifies that 'question' is meant for natural-language multi-part questions and provides examples.

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 clear action: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1517 STRUCTURED data sources' in one call, and explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search. It also contrasts with siblings like ask_pipeworx for single lookups, so an agent can tell them apart.

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?

Provides direct routing guidance: use ask_pipeworx when not signed in and for single lookups, and use deep_research for broad/multi-part questions over structured data. It also notes the paid-plan constraint for 'thorough' depth, making when-to-use conditions explicit.

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

All Fac 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 tools occupy the same "answer a factual question" niche: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, and bet_research all route to the same underlying catalog, so an agent must parse subtle differences to pick correctly. scan_competitor_ai_presence also wraps ai_visibility_check, adding another near-duplicate. The detailed descriptions help, but the boundaries are genuinely fuzzy.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set mixes several conventions: fac_*, polymarket_*, and pipeworx_* prefixes coexist with bare verbs (remember, recall, forget, subscribe, unsubscribe) and noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_changes, bet_research). ask_pipeworx_beta/grounded use a suffix pattern while pipeworx_feedback/trending use a prefix, so there is no single predictable scheme. Still, most names are readable and describe what they do.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well above the 25+ threshold and creates a heavy surface for any client to load and reason about. The broad data-platform scope explains some of the count, but many tools are meta-variants of the same query/research capability rather than genuinely distinct operations.

Completeness4/5

For the server's apparent purpose—authoritative data lookup, research, prediction-market analysis, and account/feed management—the surface covers the core lifecycle: query, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, recent changes, claim verification, subscriptions, alerts, and memory. Minor gaps exist (no direct tool to fetch a pipeworx:// citation URI; no raw per-pack access), but most workflows are supported.

Resources