Skip to main content
Glama

Gmail

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. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark read-only and idempotent; the description adds substantial behavior beyond them: account and paid-plan requirement, never-invented gaps[], contradictions[] scanning, semantic excerpting, fetchable citation_uri only when resolvable, hop fields, and latency expectations. No conflict with annotations; the description is highly 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 long, but the density is justified for a complex research tool. It front-loads the account requirement and core value proposition, then walks through alternatives, depth behavior, return shape, and performance. A little more structural separation (e.g., bullets) would improve scannability, but every sentence carries meaningful, non-redundant information.

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?

There is no output schema, yet the description fully specifies the return shape (findings packet with verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation_uri, gaps[], contradictions[], hop). It also covers auth, pricing, latency, fallback tool, and how depth variants behave. For a research tool this complex, the description is complete enough for an agent to invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaning beyond the schema by tying the depth enums to account requirements (thorough paid), to latency (15-60s / ~90s), and to behavioral differences (gap recovery vs. chasing leads). It also clarifies the question parameter by saying broad/multi-part is fine. This goes beyond pure schema reuse.

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 1506 structured data sources, with a distinctive method (facets, parallel routing, findings packet). It explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings by saying it is not open-web search and by pointing to ask_pipeworx for single 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 and when-not-to-use guidance: broad/multi-part questions over structured data are the target; single lookups and breaking current-news topics should go to ask_pipeworx; unsigned users are routed away. This is exemplary alternative routing. It also explains depth-level tradeoffs so an agent can select the correct depth.

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

All Gmail 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There is significant overlap among tools, particularly within the Pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and the Polymarket family (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread). These tools have similar purposes, making it hard for an agent to distinguish them at a glance. The Gmail tools are a small, distinct cluster, but the overall set is confusing.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use snake_case, but the verb_noun pattern is inconsistent. Many start with verbs (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, discover_tools, etc.), but some use noun_verb (bet_research), noun_noun (entity_profile), or adjective_noun (deep_research). This mixed pattern reduces predictability.

Tool Count2/5

With 36 tools, the count is high, but the server name 'Gmail' suggests a focused email service. Only 5 tools are Gmail-related, while the rest cover a vast, unrelated domain (Pipeworx, Polymarket, etc.). This mismatch makes the tool count inappropriate for the server's apparent purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the Gmail domain, the tool surface is incomplete (e.g., missing delete, archive, modify labels). For the broader Pipeworx/Polymarket domain, the tools are extensive but lack clarity in coverage. The server attempts to cover too many domains without sufficient depth in any, leading to notable gaps.

Resources