Skip to main content
Glama

Cbioportal

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?

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the decomposition-and-parallel-routing behavior, explicit gaps[] rather than invented answers, hop/re-iteration semantics, contradictions[], semantic excerpting, citation resolvability, and expected durations. This is notably rich behavioral disclosure for a research tool.

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 information-dense, front-loading the critical account requirement before any marketing language. Every sentence contributes behavioral or routing context. It loses one point for being somewhat sprawling and mixing pricing, routing, mechanics, and timing in a way that could be tightened with paragraph breaks.

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 complex tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description covers prerequisites, alternatives, return format highlights, failure behavior, performance expectations, and depth semantics. An agent can decide whether to call it and roughly what to expect without needing the schema opened, and the annotation hints already cover safety/idempotency.

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 already 100%, so a baseline of 3 applies, but the description adds real value by explaining what 'thorough' adds (paid, follow-up hop, lead-chasing, ~90s) and tying 'standard' to gap recovery and contradictions[]. The only minor gap is that the description doesn't restate the exact quick=3/standard=3/thorough=6 facet counts beyond the schema.

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 ('research') and a distinctive resource ('Pipeworx's 1500 STRUCTURED data sources ... in ONE call') and draws an explicit line against open-web search. It also addresses several close siblings (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded) by naming what this tool is NOT and the kind of broad/multi-part questions it is best for.

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 selection criteria: use deep_research for broad/multi-part structured-data questions, prefer ask_pipeworx for single lookups and for live/current news topics, and use ask_pipeworx when not signed in. It also explains depth tiers and expected latency, so an agent knows when to pick this over siblings such as compare_entities or validate_claim.

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

All Cbioportal 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but ask_pipeworx_beta is an intentional near-duplicate of ask_pipeworx, and several polymarket/entity tools overlap in scope. The descriptions do enough to disambiguate most pairs, but the duplicate beta routing tool introduces real ambiguity.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case, but the pattern varies: verb_noun (get_gene, search_studies), noun_noun (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending), and product-prefixed verbs (ask_pipeworx, bet_research). There is no single consistent convention, though the names remain readable.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is a heavy surface, and the vast majority (31) are unrelated to cBioPortal; only four tools actually belong to the named domain. This makes the count inappropriate for a cancer-genomics MCP server, as the set is bloated with out-of-scope utilities.

Completeness1/5

For a cBioPortal server, only metadata-level tools exist (gene lookup, study details, cancer types, study search); core cBioPortal data access — mutations, copy-number alterations, clinical data, molecular profiles, sample-level queries — is entirely missing. The tool surface severely under-covers the named domain.

Resources