Skip to main content
Glama

Currents

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. 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), thorough=8 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus a contradictions[] scan across findings)."New 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)."
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / depth / description
      Previous value: -"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3, standard=5 (default), thorough=8 (paid plans). \"thorough\" also runs a second ITERATIVE hop — a planner inspects the first-pass findings/gaps and chases the most valuable leads or recovers gaps, resolving multi-step questions in one call."New 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), thorough=8 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus a contradictions[] scan across findings)."
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / depth / description
      Previous value: -"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3, standard=5 (default), thorough=8 (paid plans)."New value: +"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3, standard=5 (default), thorough=8 (paid plans). \"thorough\" also runs a second ITERATIVE hop — a planner inspects the first-pass findings/gaps and chases the most valuable leads or recovers gaps, resolving multi-step questions in one call."
  5. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, destructiveHint=false) already cover the safety profile, and the description adds substantial behavioral context on top: expected latency (15-60s, up to ~90s for thorough), the guarantee that findings are 'never invented', citation_uri being present only when actually resolvable, semantic excerpting instead of head-truncation, and hop/gap/contradiction behavior. 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 description is long but exceptionally dense — nearly every sentence carries a distinct fact (auth gate, sibling routing, timing, citation resolvability, excerpting behavior, hop semantics). It is front-loaded with the most critical gating information (account requirement and alternative routing). Minor redundancy exists with the schema's own depth parameter description, and the citation_uri explanation is slightly verbose, preventing a perfect score.

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 high-complexity tool with no output schema, the description is remarkably complete: it covers account prerequisites, expected latency, the full return contract (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citations, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field), failure behavior (gaps[] for unanswered facets), and clear differentiation from a large sibling set of research-adjacent tools. Nothing an agent needs to decide whether and how to call it 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 the baseline is 3. The description adds real operational meaning beyond the schema — especially for depth, clarifying the differences between quick/standard/thorough in terms of hop behavior, gap recovery, contradiction scanning, and time cost — while also mapping depth tiers to account requirements. The question parameter is well-covered by the schema, so no compensation needed there.

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 precise verb and resource: grounded multi-source research across 1,517 structured data sources, with an explicit negative definition ('this is NOT open-web search'). It names the mechanism (decomposition into facets, parallel routing to 5,798 tools) and the output shape (findings packet), making it clearly distinguishable from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx and compare_entities without opening their schemas.

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 is exemplary: it explicitly states when to use this tool ('best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data') and gives specific conditions for routing to alternatives — 'for a single lookup use ask_pipeworx', 'for BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS prefer ask_pipeworx', and 'if you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead'. This is the gold standard of when/when-not guidance with named siblings.

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

All Currents 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 tool clusters are hard to tell apart: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical routers (beta currently behaves exactly like stable), and the six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research all overlap around edge and arbitrage discovery. The descriptions are detailed and help, but an agent must read carefully to avoid misselecting a sibling tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently lowercase snake_case, but the verb/noun ordering is mixed: verb-first names (ask_pipeworx, list_categories, resolve_entity) coexist with noun-first names (polymarket_edges, entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback, recent_alerts) and bare verbs (remember, recall, forget). Readable overall, but the pattern is not systematic.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well beyond the 25+ threshold and spans at least six loosely related domains (news, structured data research, prediction markets, AI visibility, memory, subscriptions), making the server feel like a multi-product grab bag. Meta-tools like discover_tools, suggest_questions, and pipeworx_trending add further navigation overhead.

Completeness4/5

Within each bundled domain the lifecycle is well covered: data lookup has routing, grounded mode, deep research, entity resolution, comparison, and claim validation; Polymarket has research, arbitrage, edge, fill-risk, and cross-venue spread tools; memory and subscriptions each have full CRUD-ish flows. Minor gaps like subscription updating or direct article-by-ID fetching are workarounds rather than dead ends.

Resources