Skip to main content
Glama

Bundlephobia

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 signal read-only and idempotent behavior, but the description adds substantial behavioral detail: parallel tool routing, findings packet structure, gaps[] never-invented guarantee, contradictions[], hop field, citation_uri fetchability, semantic excerpting, and latency expectations. It also discloses the paid-tier constraint for thorough depth, all beyond the annotation signals.

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?

The description is long, but every sentence earns its place by covering a distinct and material aspect: auth, sibling routing, sourcing, return packet, gaps, contradictions, citations, excerpting, and latency. Critical caveats are front-loaded at the very beginning, and the rest is organized logically.

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?

This is a high-complexity tool with no output schema, so the description correctly carries the full burden of explaining the return value. It does so exhaustively: evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citations, gaps[], contradictions[], hop, and performance expectations. There is no missing operational detail an agent would need to call or interpret this tool 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 coverage is 100% and the schema already documents both parameters richly, so a baseline of 3 applies. The description adds genuine extras: the account/paid-plan prerequisite, what 'standard' vs 'thorough' do at a higher level, and example question shapes. It doesn't need to document question syntax because the schema already handles that.

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 uses a specific verb ('research') and identifies the precise resource (Pipeworx's 1500 STRUCTURED data sources, with concrete examples like SEC filings, FRED/BLS, FDA). It explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from sibling ask_pipeworx, so an agent cannot mistake it for a related tool.

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 clear when-to-use guidance: best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data, and explicitly says to use ask_pipeworx for single lookups and for breaking/colloquial current-news topics. It also states the account prerequisite and that depth:'thorough' requires a paid plan, plus the signed-out fallback.

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

All Bundlephobia 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There is substantial overlap among tools in the Pipeworx group: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route natural-language queries to the same 5,578 tools and sources, with only subtle differences in mode (beta vs stable, grounded vs standard, single vs multi-part). Similarly, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, and polymarket_fill_risk are heavily intertwined, making differentiation difficult. Tools like similar, size, history, and scan_dependency from the bundlephobia side are distinct, but the Pipeworx family muddies the set.

Naming Consistency3/5

The bundlephobia tools follow a consistent noun pattern (size, similar, history), and the Pipeworx meta-tools use snake_case verbs (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, compare_entities, validate_claim). However, the naming is inconsistent across the two families—bundlephobia's simple nouns (size, similar, history) clash with the verbose descriptive verbs—and naming like ai_visibility_check, scan_competitor_ai_presence, and generate_llms_txt break from the Pipeworx pattern. The set mixes short names, camelCase-ish compounds, and snake_case, so no single consistent convention holds.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is too many for a server that ostensibly serves two domains (bundle-size analysis and Pipeworx data research). The bundle-size analysis needs only a handful (size, history, similar, recent_searches, scan_dependency), yet there are over 30 tools dominated by a sprawling meta-research layer including multiple ask_pipeworx variants, several polymarket tools, plus meta-cognitive tools (remember, recall, forget, discover_tools) that are not core to either domain. This bloats the surface and makes call routing difficult.

Completeness4/5

Each functional domain is fairly complete: bundlephobia covers size measurement, history, alternatives, search, and dependency vetting; the Pipeworx side covers lookup, research, entity resolution, comparison, verification, subscriptions, and feedback. However, there are gaps—e.g., no tool for directly reading an npm package's README or license beyond scan_dependency's summary, and no explicit tools for some administrative actions like account management or subscription editing beyond create/cancel/list. The completeness is strong for what's advertised but not exhaustive.

Resources