Skip to main content
Glama

Cta

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, open-world behavior, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: account/plan requirements, parallel facet decomposition, findings-packet structure, gaps[] semantics, contradiction scanning, citation resolvability, excerpting behavior, and latency expectations. This is unusually rich behavioral disclosure.

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 information-dense, covering auth, alternatives, behavior, output format, caveats, and performance. It front-loads the account requirement and fallback, then explains functionality. Some repetition occurs (contradictions[] and gap recovery are mentioned more than once), but each sentence mostly earns its place.

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?

For a two-parameter tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it explains selection criteria, alternatives, auth constraints, depth semantics, output packet contents, gap handling, citation guarantees, and expected latency. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it and how to configure it.

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. The description adds value by explaining that 'thorough' requires a paid plan, giving latency implications per depth, and reinforcing that 'question' can be broad and multi-part. Most enum semantics already appear in the schema, so the extra contribution is moderate.

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 a specific resource ('Pipeworx's 1517 STRUCTURED data sources'), and explicitly contrasts itself with 'NOT open-web search.' It also names the closest alternative, ask_pipeworx, distinguishing this tool as the multi-source, multi-facet research option.

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 guidance: 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data' with concrete examples. It also states when NOT to use it: 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead' and routes unsigned-in users to ask_pipeworx.

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

All Cta 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all accept natural-language factual questions, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly described as currently identical to ask_pipeworx. The entity tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, resolve_entity) and the many Polymarket tools also blur together, making misselection likely.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names are snake_case and readable, with recognizable prefixes like cta_, polymarket_, and ask_pipeworx_. However, conventions are mixed: bare verbs (remember, forget, subscribe), noun-style phrases (entity_profile, bet_research), and variants like ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence prevent a single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is above the comfortable range, and the count is especially mismatched for a server named 'Cta': only 4 tools actually concern Chicago transit, while the other 31 form a general-purpose research, prediction-market, and memory suite. The set feels like multiple unrelated servers merged together.

Completeness2/5

As a CTA server, the surface is notably incomplete: it has bus/train positions and predictions but lacks alerts, service disruptions, route listings, and station/stop metadata. The broader Pipeworx tools are extensive but appear bolted on, so the overall set has no coherent domain against which completeness can be judged.

Resources