Skip to main content
Glama

Openfema

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes far beyond the annotations: it discloses an account requirement, paid tier, parallel tool routing, explicit gaps[] for unanswered facets with a 'never invented' guarantee, contradictions[] behavior, fetchable citation URIs, semantic excerpting of large records, and latency expectations. There is no contradiction with the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Although long, the description is dense and every segment earns its place: auth prerequisite, scope, output packet, alternative tool routing, depth behavior, citation guarantee, excerpting behavior, and latency. The most actionable requirement (account needed) is front-loaded, and there is no filler.

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 only two parameters and no output schema, the description gives enough detail for an agent to select and invoke the tool correctly: input semantics, depth options, output packet structure, gaps and contradictions behavior, timing, and when to choose an alternative tool. Nothing essential is missing.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful extra semantics by explaining the depth tiers in terms of hops and recovery behavior, reiterating the paid requirement for thorough, and providing example question phrasing that illustrates what question should contain.

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 the tool's function: grounded multi-source research across 1,517 structured data sources in one call, with facet decomposition and parallel routing to 5,798 tools. It also explicitly contrasts itself with open-web search and positions itself for broad/multi-part questions, making it easy to distinguish from siblings like ask_pipeworx.

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 explicitly says to use ask_pipeworx instead when not signed in and for a single lookup. It names the intended use case ('Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data') with concrete example questions and highlights the paid-tier constraint for depth:'thorough'.

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

All Openfema 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

The tool set has several overlapping families: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, the discovery tools (list_datasets, discover_tools, suggest_questions) all serve a 'what can I do here' purpose, and ai_visibility_check is wrapped by scan_competitor_ai_presence. The polymarket_* tools are well-differentiated, but the heavy overlap in the meta-tools makes selection error-prone.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of conventions with no unifying pattern: family prefixes appear as ask_pipeworx_*, pipeworx_*, and polymarket_*, while unrelated tools use bare nouns (entity_profile, recent_changes), verb-first names (validate_claim, search_within), and inconsistent styles. The three actual FEMA tools (disaster_declarations, list_datasets, query_dataset) share no prefix that ties them to the server's stated name.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools exceeds the 'too many' threshold, and the count is unjustified by the server's apparent scope: only 3 of 34 tools relate to OpenFEMA data, with the remaining 31 being a grab-bag of Pipeworx routing, Polymarket betting, memory, subscription, and AI-visibility utilities. The bulk is either redundant with the meta-routers or off-domain for a server named 'Openfema'.

Completeness2/5

For FEMA specifically, list_datasets + query_dataset covers generic read-only access and disaster_declarations adds a convenience wrapper, but the domain is extremely thin and lacks FEMA-specific conveniences (e.g., geographic aggregation, multi-dataset joins, incident summaries). For the broader Pipeworx universe the routing coverage is actually decent, but that makes the FEMA-named server's surface feel incoherent — an agent expecting a FEMA toolset finds most of its value in unrelated prediction-market and brand-visibility tools.

Resources