Skip to main content
Glama

Caniuse

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations covering safety, the description adds substantial behavioral detail: parallel decomposition to 5,724 tools, findings packet contents, gaps[] for unanswered facets, contradictions[], explicit no-invention policy, semantic excerpting, and latency ranges. There is no contradiction with annotations; the 'NOT open-web search' line is consistent with the structured-source framing despite the openWorldHint.

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 front-loaded with the most decision-relevant facts: account requirement, alternative tools, structured-data scope, and expected latency. It uses bold keywords and examples effectively, though the depth-level behavior is repeated from the schema, so it could be slightly tighter without losing value.

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 carries the output-format burden: it discloses the findings packet fields, verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation_uri, gaps[], contradictions[], and timing. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool correctly, interpret its results, or route around it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the schema already explains quick/standard/thorough facet counts, defaults, gap recovery, contradictions[], and the paid tier in detail. The description's parameter-related prose mostly restates this, adding little beyond framing that questions can be broad/multi-part and that multi-step questions resolve in one call. It meets the high-coverage baseline but does not substantially exceed it.

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 concrete verb and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1497 STRUCTURED data sources in ONE call.' It also explicitly contrasts itself with open-web search and gives example question types, making it easy to distinguish from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx without inspecting schemas.

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 says when to use deep_research ('best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data') and when to prefer alternatives: 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx' and for breaking/current news 'prefer ask_pipeworx.' It also states the account and paid-plan prerequisite up front, which is critical routing information.

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

All Caniuse 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

The tool set has significant overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical variants, and deep_research, entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, and validate_claim all retrieve structured data with overlapping capabilities. The five Polymarket-oriented tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) further blur boundaries. Agents will struggle to select the right tool without reading very long descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clear snake_case verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, validate_claim), and the polymarket_* cluster is consistently prefixed. However, a few tools are bare nouns (feature, support, search) and the remember/forget/recall trio deviates from the dominant pattern, creating minor inconsistency.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a server named 'Caniuse' — only 4 tools actually pertain to browser compatibility (feature, support, search, list_browsers), while 31 are Pipeworx data tools. The server name misrepresents the content, and the sheer number overwhelms rather than scopes the surface.

Completeness3/5

For the caniuse domain, coverage is complete (search, feature, support, list_browsers). The Pipeworx side includes meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions), retrieval, memory, subscriptions, and feedback, but some tools require accounts and there are gaps like no direct way to list all data sources without discover_tools. The overall surface is broad but lacks obvious missing operations for any single coherent domain.

Resources