Skip to main content
Glama

Bungie

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already mark readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive, and the description adds meaningful behavior: parallel routing to thousands of tools, gaps[] with never-invented evidence, stable/citation_uri fetchability, semantic excerpting, contradictions scan, and approximate latency. It also discloses the paid tier requirement for 'thorough'. 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 every clause carries operational detail (auth, alternatives, return shape, timing). It front-loads the account requirement and core distinction before elaborating on depth and output. Slight redundancy around gaps[] and 'never invented' prevents a 5.

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?

For a no-output-schema tool, the description is remarkably complete: it explains the return packet, per-finding fields, citation resolvability, coverage limits, and expected latency. An agent has enough to decide when to call it and what to do with the result.

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, but the description adds practical parameter context: question should be broad/multi-part with examples, depth tiers are tied to runtime and plan level, and 'standard'/'thorough' affect gap-recovery and contradiction passes. This goes a step beyond the enum 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 names a specific verb+resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1500 STRUCTURED data sources' and clarifies it is not open-web search. It also distinguishes deep_research from ask_pipeworx by capability and scope, so an agent can select it without inferring.

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?

It explicitly states when to use deep_research (broad/multi-part questions over structured data), when to prefer ask_pipeworx (single lookup, breaking news, colloquial current news), and even handles auth tier with a sign-in fallback. This is direct when/when-not routing.

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

All Bungie 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

C2.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The tool set mixes Destiny 2 game tools with a large suite of general data querying tools from Pipeworx. Within the data querying subset, tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research have overlapping purposes, making it hard for an agent to distinguish which to use. The Destiny tools are more distinct, but overall, the set has noticeable ambiguity.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are highly inconsistent, mixing single-word names (character, clan), snake_case (ask_pipeworx, deep_research), and compound names with underscores (polymarket_arbitrage, scan_dependency). There is no uniform verb_noun or other predictable pattern, making it difficult for an agent to infer functionality from the name alone.

Tool Count2/5

With 43 tools, the server is bloated for its stated name 'Bungie'. Many tools are unrelated to Bungie (e.g., Pipeworx data tools, Polymarket tools), suggesting the server aggregates multiple domains without clear scoping. The tool count is too high for a coherent set focused on a single service.

Completeness2/5

For the Bungie game domain, the set is fairly complete (characters, clans, stats). However, the inclusion of numerous unrelated tools (financial, economic, prediction market) fragments completeness. The server lacks a clear domain, leaving gaps in both the Bungie-specific and the general data querying aspects when considered as a unified set.

Resources