Skip to main content
Glama

chucknorris

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 1517 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 5,798 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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / depth / description
      Previous value: -"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3 (single hop), standard=5 (default; adds a gap-recovery hop that re-angles unanswered facets + a contradictions[] scan across findings), thorough=8 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus the contradictions[] scan)."New value: +"How 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)."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / depth / description
      Previous value: -"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3 (single hop), standard=5 (default; adds a gap-recovery hop that re-angles unanswered facets), thorough=8 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus a contradictions[] scan across findings)."New value: +"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3 (single hop), standard=5 (default; adds a gap-recovery hop that re-angles unanswered facets + a contradictions[] scan across findings), thorough=8 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus the contradictions[] scan)."
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / depth / description
      Previous value: -"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3, standard=5 (default), thorough=8 (paid plans). \"thorough\" also runs a second ITERATIVE hop — a planner inspects the first-pass findings/gaps and chases the most valuable leads or recovers gaps, resolving multi-step questions in one call."New value: +"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3 (single hop), standard=5 (default; adds a gap-recovery hop that re-angles unanswered facets), thorough=8 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus a contradictions[] scan across findings)."
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / depth / description
      Previous value: -"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3, standard=5 (default), thorough=8 (paid plans)."New value: +"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3, standard=5 (default), thorough=8 (paid plans). \"thorough\" also runs a second ITERATIVE hop — a planner inspects the first-pass findings/gaps and chases the most valuable leads or recovers gaps, resolving multi-step questions in one call."
  5. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, openWorldHint=true, idempotentHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description substantially adds behavioral context beyond annotations: account/auth requirements, parallel decomposition behavior, return packet structure with verbatim evidence/gaps/contradictions, latency expectations (15-60s up to ~90s), semantic excerpting rather than head-truncation, and a guarantee that citations are fetchable. No contradiction between description and annotations.

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 well structured, but it is quite long and mixes multiple distinct pieces of advice: account requirements, usage routing, internal mechanics, result format, latency, and citation behavior. Much of this is valuable, but a few details (e.g., exact counts, hop semantics, citation URI mechanics) could be tightened. It is more than a single-purpose durable paragraph, so it loses a point on conciseness.

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?

Given the tool has only 2 well-documented parameters, no output schema, and rich annotations, the description is thorough enough for an agent to invoke it correctly: it states what happens, how long it takes, what the response contains, which alternatives exist, and what caveats apply (gaps for missing data, paid depth tier). The only minor gap is that it doesn't explicitly define the 'question' string length limit, but the description covers the operation completely.

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 description coverage is 100% and both parameters are thoroughly described in the schema. The description adds useful context about depth variants ('standard' adds a gap-recovery hop, 'thorough' is paid and chases leads, quick=single hop) and what the question parameter is designed for (broad/multi-part). The schema covers the details well, so the description's added value is real but not essential.

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 uses a specific verb ('research'), a resource ('Pipeworx's 1517 STRUCTURED data sources'), and differentiates from open-web search and ask_pipeworx. It clearly states the tool decomposes questions into facets and routes them across tools in parallel. This distinguishes it from siblings like ask_pipeworx, search_within, and compare_entities.

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 explicitly states when to use this tool ('broad/multi-part questions over structured data') and when not to: for a single lookup use ask_pipeworx, and for breaking/current news prefer ask_pipeworx because deep_research may return empty gaps. It also notes account requirements and depth choices. These are concrete routing criteria for an agent.

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

All chucknorris 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical query routers, and the five polymarket_* tools all hunt mispricings in subtly different ways. The memory trio (remember/recall/forget) and subscription trio (subscribe/unsubscribe/recent_alerts) are distinct, but the many data-query tools create frequent ambiguity for an agent deciding which one to call.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of verb_noun (list_categories, resolve_entity, validate_claim), bare nouns (entity_profile, random_joke, deep_research), single verbs (forget, recall), and brand-prefixed nouns (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending). There's no consistent pattern across the set, so an agent cannot predict a tool's name from its function.

Tool Count1/5

35 tools for a server named 'chucknorris' is an extreme mismatch; only 4 tools actually relate to Chuck Norris jokes. The rest form a sprawling collection of data-research, prediction-market, subscription, and memory utilities that have nothing to do with the stated server identity and overwhelm any agent expecting a simple joke API.

Completeness2/5

The Chuck Norris joke subset is complete (random, by-category, search, categories), but the overall server attempts many unrelated domains—structured data queries, prediction-market arb, entity profiles, subscriptions, memory—none of which are clearly scoped or fully coherent. The result is a grab-bag with no single domain that feels finished, and the incongruous inclusion of joke tools adds confusion rather than coverage.

Resources