Skip to main content
Glama

Cms

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 1496 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 5,718 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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint=false, and the description does not contradict them. It adds rich behavioral context beyond annotations: account/paid-plan requirements, parallel routing across 5,718 tools, the findings-packet shape (verbatim evidence, confidence, fetched_at, gaps[]), contradictions[], citation_uri fetchability, semantic excerpting, and latency expectations. No contradiction found.

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 rarely wasteful; it front-loads the account prerequisite and the primary alternative before explaining the core behavior. Some redundancy with the schema's depth parameter definitions exists, but the extra latency and plan-cost details justify most of the length.

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 carries the full burden of explaining return behavior, and it does: findings packet fields, gaps[] for unanswered facets, contradictions[] for deeper depths, hop field, resolvable citation_uri semantics, excerpting behavior, and expected latency. It also covers authentication and a fallback path, making it complete for an agent deciding whether and how to call this tool.

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 decision-relevant semantics not present in the schema: depth:'thorough' requires a paid plan, approximate latency per depth level, and why depth matters for multi-step questions (gap recovery vs. chasing leads). It reinforces the schema's enum meanings with practical operational context.

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 a specific verb and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1496 STRUCTURED data sources ... in ONE call.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and names the sibling it is not (ask_pipeworx), making the tool's identity unmistakable.

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 for broad/multi-part structured-data questions, use ask_pipeworx for single lookups or breaking/current-news topics, and use ask_pipeworx if not signed in. It even names the alternative behavior for the excluded cases, leaving no ambiguity.

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

All Cms 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
Disambiguation3/5

Some tools have clearly distinct purposes (remember/recall/forget, subscribe/unsubscribe), but the ask_pipeworx family overlaps heavily — ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical today, and ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research are variations on the same routing core. Polymarket tools and comparison/profile tools also have fuzzy boundaries, though detailed descriptions help agents choose.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern (search_datasets, get_dataset, validate_claim, resolve_entity). A few deviate with bare verbs (remember, forget, recall) or noun-like names (dataset_info, entity_profile, pipeworx_trending), but the overall style is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is a heavy surface for one server, and the scope sprawls across CMS open data, general data research, prediction markets, memory storage, and subscription management. Many of these could be split into separate coherent servers, and several meta-routers (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions) overlap in purpose.

Completeness4/5

Within the broad data-research domain the set is fairly complete: search, retrieval, grounding, comparison, entity resolution, verification, subscriptions, and memory are all covered with no obvious dead ends. However, the server is named 'Cms' yet only three tools actually touch CMS datasets, leaving that narrow purpose under-covered relative to the rest.

Resources