Skip to main content
Glama

Arcgis Marioncountyor

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 1499 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 5,738 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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark the tool read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: parallel decomposition, hop behavior, gap recovery, contradictions[], excerpting semantics, fetchable citation_uri, latency expectations, and auth/plan requirements. No statement 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is long but densely informative, front-loading the critical account requirement and core purpose. There is some redundancy, such as mentioning gap recovery and contradictions[] in multiple places, so it is not maximally concise, but the length is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 no output schema, the description fully compensates by detailing the findings packet, evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, and citation semantics. It also covers authentication, plan limits, latency, and when the tool will return empty results, leaving no critical gap for an agent calling it.

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% and both parameters are already described well. The description adds meaningful operational nuance, especially for depth: it explains the multi-hop behavior, gap-recovery pass, contradictions scan, and latency differences beyond the schema's enum text. This goes beyond what the schema alone provides.

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 1497 STRUCTURED data sources ... in ONE call.' It also explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx, making the tool's unique role clear even among many 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 direct, actionable conditions: 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead,' 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx,' 'For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS ... prefer ask_pipeworx,' and 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data.' This explicitly tells an agent when to choose this tool versus alternatives.

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

All Arcgis Marioncountyor 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose, with detailed descriptions that specify when to use each. Even overlapping functions like ask_pipeworx varieties are well-differentiated by mode (casual vs grounded vs multi-source).

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tool names follow a verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., query_layer, resolve_entity), but a few deviate with single-word verbs (forget, remember, recall) or noun_noun (layer_info). The pattern is mostly consistent with minor exceptions.

Tool Count3/5

With 33 tools, the count is high and borders on heavy. However, the tools span multiple domains (GIS, financial data, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions), and each serves a unique role, so the count is justifiable but could be streamlined.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a broad range of data access and analysis tasks relevant to the inferred domain of a multi-purpose assistant. While the ArcGIS portion is limited, the overall surface is well-populated with few obvious gaps.

Resources