Skip to main content
Glama

Censtatd Hk

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the annotations (readOnly, idempotent, openWorld), the description discloses account requirements, paid-tier restrictions, latency expectations, the gaps[] 'never invented' behavior, contradictions[] scans, semantic excerpting rather than head-truncation, and the fetchable citation_uri property. This substantially exceeds what annotations alone convey and does not contradict them.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is information-dense and front-loaded with account requirements and the core one-call distinction, but it is delivered as a long, run-on paragraph with many parentheticals and several separate redirects to ask_pipeworx. It could be restructured into clearer sections or bullets without losing necessary detail.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully covers what an agent needs to select and invoke the tool correctly: prereqs, alternatives, input style, depth options, latency, return packet contents, citation behavior, gap handling, and known limitations. Nothing essential appears missing.

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 meaningful semantics: depth values are mapped to facet counts and hops (quick=3 single hop, standard=3 with gap recovery, thorough=6 paid with iterative pass), and the question parameter is clarified as natural language that may be broad or multi-part. This adds useful decision-making detail 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 clearly states the verb and resource: it performs grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1500 STRUCTURED data sources in one call, explicitly noting this is NOT open-web search. It also distinguishes itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx by describing its facet-decomposition and parallel-tool routing behavior.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit and actionable: use ask_pipeworx when not signed in, for single lookups, or for breaking/current-news topics; use deep_research for broad/multi-part questions over structured data. The description gives both inclusion and exclusion conditions, naming the exact alternative tool in each case.

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

All Censtatd Hk 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools target a distinct action or resource, and the long routing descriptions make choices like ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded vs deep_research clear. The main weak spots are ask_pipeworx_beta being currently identical to ask_pipeworx and the six overlapping Polymarket tools, but each has a discernible workflow.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming has internally consistent subfamilies such as censtatd_*, ask_pipeworx*, and polymarket_*, but overall it mixes verb-first names (get_table, validate_claim, subscribe), noun-first names (entity_profile, bet_research, pipeworx_feedback), and bare imperatives (remember, forget, recall). The set is readable but does not follow one convention.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools exceeds the 25+ threshold and feels heavy, especially since many tools (generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending) are unrelated to the HK Census core implied by the server name. The broad Pipeworx scope explains the width, but the surface is still large for an agent to navigate efficiently.

Completeness4/5

For a read-only research/data-access gateway, coverage is strong: generic lookup, grounded verification, deep research, entity profile/compare/change, entity resolution, memory, and subscription lifecycle are all represented. Minor gaps exist, such as no subscription update, no explicit bulk/export path, and fewer HK C&SD convenience wrappers, but agents can work around them.

Resources