Skip to main content
Glama

Could Have Been Email

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?

Even though annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, the description adds substantial behavioral context: account and plan requirements, parallel decomposition across 5,743 tools, gaps[] instead of hallucination, contradictions[], hop fields, fetchable pipeworx:// citations, semantic excerpting, and latency expectations. This goes far beyond the annotations and meaningfully informs invocation expectations.

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

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is long but tightly packed, with no wasted sentences. It front-loads the critical account requirement and core differentiator, then proceeds logically through usage guidance, depth behavior, output format, and performance expectations — all relevant for a complex research tool.

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 the return shape: findings packet, verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation_uri, gaps[], contradictions[], and hop field. It also covers error/latency behavior and fallback routing advice, making it complete for an agent deciding whether and how to invoke the tool.

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

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and both parameters (question, depth) are already fully documented in the schema. The description reinforces the depth semantics and ties 'thorough' to a paid plan, but it does not add major new parameter-level meaning beyond the schema's own descriptions.

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 and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1500 STRUCTURED data sources' in ONE call. It clearly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx, so an agent can identify what this tool uniquely does.

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 gives explicit selection criteria: 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data', 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx', and

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

All Could Have Been Email 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters are nearly indistinguishable in purpose: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same underlying catalog, and the six polymarket tools heavily overlap in surfacing prediction-market edge. Even with detailed descriptions, an agent could easily misselect between bet_research and polymarket_edges or between discover_tools and suggest_questions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names use lowercase snake_case, but the pattern is mixed: some are verb_noun (compare_entities, resolve_entity), some are bare verbs (remember, forget, recall), and some are compound noun phrases (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending). ask_pipeworx also breaks the separator convention compared to ask_pipeworx_beta and ask_pipeworx_grounded.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools, this exceeds the 25+ threshold for 'too many' and feels like a platform bundle rather than a focused server. It spans data querying, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, feedback, AI visibility, dependency scanning, and llms.txt generation, which is far more surface area than one coherent server should present.

Completeness4/5

For the core data-research and prediction-market domains, coverage is strong: query, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, comparisons, change feeds, arbitrage, fill-risk, subscriptions, and memory are all present with no major dead ends. The gaps are mostly the single-purpose oddballs (could_have_been_email_analyze, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency) that don't connect to the rest of the surface.

Resources