Skip to main content
Glama

Adzuna

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 1500 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 5,743 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.

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive behavior, and the description builds on them with rich operational detail: account/paid-tier requirements, parallel routing across 5,743 tools, never-invented gaps[], always-fetchable citation_uri, contradiction[] on certain depths, and latency expectations. Nothing contradicts the 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?

Long but appropriately sized for a complex tool; the most critical gate (account requirement and fallback) is front-loaded, and every subsequent sentence adds distinct operational value. The flow from prerequisite to usage to depth semantics to return details to timing is logical.

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?

Even with no output schema, the description specifies the findings packet fields (evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation, gaps, contradictions), depth behavior, latency, and exclusions. An agent has enough to decide whether to call it and what to expect in return.

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 covers both parameters at 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds meaning beyond the schema by detailing depth-tier behavior (standard gap recovery, thorough lead-chasing, contradictions[] scan) and clarifying what kinds of questions are appropriate. This is useful supplementary semantics, though schema already does much of the work.

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 names a specific verb and resource: grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1500 structured data sources in one call, explicitly noting it is NOT open-web search. It distinguishes the tool from ask_pipeworx via purpose ('Best for broad/multi-part questions') and return type (findings packet with citations and gaps).

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use signals: use for broad/multi-part structured-data questions; use ask_pipeworx for single lookups, breaking/colloquial news, or when not signed in. This is direct routing guidance rather than implied context.

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

All Adzuna 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools are clearly distinct, but ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, ask_pipeworx_grounded and deep_research overlap with the base router, and the polymarket_* family contains several scanning/arbitrage tools with fuzzy boundaries. The long descriptions help, but an agent could easily call the wrong variant.

Naming Consistency3/5

There are coherent clusters (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*, bare Adzuna verbs), but the overall server mixes snake_case, bare nouns, compound names, and -_prefixed names without a unifying convention. Some tools like compare_entities, entity_profile, and scan_dependency follow a descriptive style that does not match the verb_ noun pattern used elsewhere.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold, and the server named 'Adzuna' includes far more than job-search functionality: prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, npm dependency checks, AI visibility probes, and llms.txt generation. The count feels like a bundled mega-platform rather than a focused job-data server.

Completeness3/5

For a job-search-focused server, the Adzuna tools cover search, categories, history, regional stats, salary histograms, and top companies, but there is no direct job-detail or application workflow. For the broader Pipeworx research surface, coverage is very thorough, so the main completeness problem is the lack of a clear unified domain rather than a specific missing operation.

Resources