Skip to main content
Glama

Country State City

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint false. The description adds substantial behavioral context: parallel routing across 5,743 tools, returns findings packet with verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, guaranteed fetchable citations, semantic excerpting, and expected latency ranges. It also notes empty gaps[] for topics outside the catalog. No contradictions 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

While long, every sentence carries essential information: account requirements, core function, usage guidance, depth modes, output structure, and performance expectations. It is logically ordered (account → purpose → usage → technical details) with no filler or redundancy.

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?

This is a complex tool with no output schema, so the description must explain return values. It covers the full packet structure (evidence, confidence, source, citations, gaps, contradictions, hop), explicates depth behaviors, cites latency, and addresses edge cases (empty gaps for out-of-catalog topics). All necessary information for correct invocation and interpretation is present.

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%, and the description goes well beyond it. It explains the depth parameter's enum values in detail (quick vs standard vs thorough), including the gap-recovery and contradiction-scan behaviors, and clarifies that question can be broad/multi-part. This enriches the schema meaning significantly.

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 states a specific verb ('research') and resource ('Pipeworx's 1500 STRUCTURED data sources'), and explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from the sibling tool ask_pipeworx. It names what it is not ('NOT open-web search') and what it is best for, making the purpose unambiguous.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use ('broad/multi-part questions over structured data') and when-not-to-use scenarios ('single lookup' → ask_pipeworx, 'BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS' → prefer ask_pipeworx). It also explains depth tiers and account requirements, eliminating ambiguity about selection.

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

All Country State City 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools overlap enough to cause misselection: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are functionally identical right now, ask_pipeworx_grounded and validate_claim both handle factual lookup/verification, and ai_visibility_check/scan_competitor_ai_presence are near duplicates in scope. The country/state/city tools are distinct but sit in a pile of unrelated Pipeworx tools, adding confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lower_snake_case and families like polymarket_* and ask_pipeworx* help group tools, but the verb_noun convention is inconsistent: entity_profile, deep_research, recent_alerts, and pipeworx_trending are noun phrases, while remember/forget/subscribe are bare verbs. It is readable but not a predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is above the practical ceiling for a focused MCP server, and the mismatch is severe: only 3 tools match the 'Country State City' name while 31 belong to a broad Pipeworx platform. A geographic server would need roughly 3-6 focused tools; this surface is bloted.

Completeness2/5

For the stated Country State City domain, list_countries/get_states/get_cities provide the basic hierarchy, but there is no city search, country/state detail lookup, or attribute discovery beyond the three list endpoints, making the useful geographic surface thin. For the Pipeworx domain the coverage is broader, but that confirms the identity mismatch and obscures the server's actual purpose.

Resources