Skip to main content
Glama

openalex

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even with annotations already marking readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, the description adds significant behavioral detail: account and tier requirements, parallel facet decomposition, findings-packet shape with evidence/confidence/source/fetched_at/citation, gap reporting ('never invented'), contradictions scanning, semantic excerpting, and latency expectations (15-60s, thorough up to ~90s). No contradiction with 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 long but front-loaded with the most operationally critical constraint (account requirement and the fallback tool). Almost every sentence adds unique value, though some phrases recur ('structured data sources' appears multiple times) and the density of parentheticals makes it slightly harder to scan. Still, it is structured and purposeful.

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, so the description carries the full burden of describing return shape — and it does: findings packet, verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citation, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, and citation_uri. It also covers auth, pricing, latency, depth semantics, and alternative routing. For a complex research tool with only two parameters, this is remarkably complete.

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 goes further by explaining how the depth parameter translates into hops, gap recovery, contradiction scans, and paid-tier requirements, and clarifies that the question parameter is expected to be broad or multi-part. This enriches both parameters beyond their 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1517 STRUCTURED data sources... in ONE call.' It also draws a clear boundary with 'this is NOT open-web search' and contrasts with ask_pipeworx for single lookups, making the tool's role unambiguous relative to siblings.

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 guidance ('Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data') and explicit alternatives with conditions: 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead' and 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead.' This is the strongest form of routing guidance.

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

All openalex 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

Several tools are effectively indistinguishable or near-duplicates: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly an identical copy of ask_pipeworx with no active experimental changes, and ask_pipeworx_grounded is a variant of the same router. discover_tools, suggest_questions, deep_research, and the ask_pipeworx family also heavily overlap as discovery/answer surfaces, while bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and polymarket_fill_risk create a dense prediction-market cluster with fuzzy boundaries.

Naming Consistency3/5

Everything is snake_case and many names follow a readable verb_noun pattern (search_works, resolve_entity, validate_claim, suggest_questions), but conventions are mixed: noun-first domain-prefixed names (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending), bare verbs (remember, forget, recall), and adjective_noun names (deep_research, recent_changes) coexist. The inconsistency is not chaotic, but it is not a unified scheme.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well over the 25-tool threshold for a heavy toolset, and the count is inflated by many tangential concerns: memory, subscriptions, feedback, trending, npm dependency scanning, AI visibility, and llms.txt generation. Only a small subset actually serves the stated OpenAlex/scholarly purpose, so the size feels bloated rather than well-scoped.

Completeness2/5

For a server named openalex, the scholarly surface is incomplete: works support search and fetch, but authors and institutions only support search with no get-by-ID, concepts support get but no search, and major OpenAlex resource types like sources, publishers, funders, and topics are absent. The many non-OpenAlex tools do not fill these gaps and instead dilute the domain coverage.

Resources