Skip to main content
Glama

Chainlist

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 1497 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 5,724 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?

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the parallel decomposition into facets routed to 5,724 tools, the findings packet structure (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation), explicit gaps[] behavior, contradictions[], hop field, citation_uri resolvability, semantic excerpting of long records, and latency expectations (15-60s, up to ~90s). 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 sentence earns its place: prerequisites, use cases, exclusions, internal behavior, output format, citation guarantees, and latency. It is front-loaded with the account requirement and fallback, which is the most decision-relevant fact. The density slightly reduces scannability, but not to the point of waste.

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 covers return semantics (findings packet, gaps, contradictions, hop, citation_uri), behavioral edge cases (news topics yield empty gaps), account gating, and latency. An agent has everything needed to select, invoke, and interpret results correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

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 real value beyond the schema: it explains the meaning of 'question' ('Broad/multi-part is fine — decomposition is the point') and elaborates each depth enum value with facet counts, recovery hops, contradiction scans, and the paid-plan requirement for 'thorough'. This substantially exceeds schema documentation.

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?

States a specific verb and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1497 STRUCTURED data sources'. It explicitly contrasts with open-web search and names sibling ask_pipeworx, so an agent can distinguish this from alternatives without opening 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?

Gives explicit when-to-use ('Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data'), when-not-to-use ('For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx'; 'For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS... prefer ask_pipeworx'), and even a prerequisite fallback ('If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead'). No ambiguity remains.

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

All Chainlist 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

A4.2/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Tools have distinct purposes with clear descriptions, but ask_pipeworx_beta currently duplicates ask_pipeworx, and the multiple prediction market tools could be confusing without careful reading.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun or noun_verb pattern, with no mixing of conventions.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is high for a single server, covering chain data, Pipeworx research, and prediction markets. While well-organized, the breadth pushes the boundary of manageable scope.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers major query operations for chains, entities, and data sources, with subscription and memory features. Minor gaps like lack of chain creation are acceptable given the server's focus on data retrieval.

Resources