Skip to main content
Glama

Clinicaltables

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?

Annotations already mark it readOnly/idempotent/destructive=False, and the description adds high-value behavioral detail beyond that: account and paid-tier requirement, non-open-web grounding, explicit gaps[], resolvable citation_uri only when serveable, contradictions[] for standard/thorough, semantic excerpting, and latency windows. No statement contradicts the 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 entry is dense and front-loaded with the account requirement and core use case, and nearly every sentence carries operational significance. It's long, but the complexity of depth options, citation fetchability, and multi-hop behavior warrants the length; a few redundancies (repeated gaps[] emphasis, dual statements of not being open-web) keep it from a 5.

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 burden of telling the agent what to expect: a findings packet with verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citation, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, and citation_uri resolver guarantee. Latency is also disclosed. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the tool is 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 baseline is 3. The description adds practical semantics for the depth parameter (paid requirement for thorough, hop and contradiction behavior) and clarifies that question is broad/multi-part natural language. It doesn't redefine the schema, so not a 5, but the added operational weight justifies a 4.

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 opens with an explicit verb+resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1497 STRUCTURED data sources... in ONE call.' It also differentiates from open-web search and enumerates the tool's decomposition behavior, making it unmistakable what the tool does and how it differs from siblings.

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 decision rules: 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data', 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx', and for breaking/current news 'prefer ask_pipeworx'. Also instructs unsigned-in agents to use ask_pipeworx. This names the alternative and the conditions that select it.

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

All Clinicaltables 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
Disambiguation3/5

Several tool groups (ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research, conditions/disease_names, polymarket_* family) have overlapping purposes, requiring careful reading of descriptions to differentiate. While many tools are conceptually distinct, the similarity within domains could lead to agent misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Naming is mostly snake_case but patterns vary: verb_noun (ask_pipeworx), noun_noun (entity_profile), single verb (forget, recall), and some adjectives (recent_changes). No consistent structure across the set, though individual names are descriptive.

Tool Count2/5

With 40 tools, the server is overly large for typical coherence. The tool count exceeds the 15–25 range deemed borderline, making it hard for agents to navigate and select efficiently.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers medical coding (ICD, LOINC, UCUM, drugs, procedures), financial data, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and meta-tools. Missing but minor elements (e.g., CPT codes) do not significantly hinder common workflows.

Resources