Skip to main content
Glama

NYC Open Data

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 1497 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 5,724 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 signal safe read-only, non-destructive, open-world behavior. The description adds substantial context beyond that: account and paid-tier requirements, latency expectations, the gaps[]/contradictions[] output fields, the conditional presence of citation URIs, and semantic excerpting behavior. No contradiction 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is long but every sentence earns its place—account prerequisite, purpose, comparison, depth differences, technical details about citations and excerpts, and latency. It is front-loaded with the critical sign-in requirement and clearly structured with semicolons, though it could benefit from bullet points for scannability.

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 tool with only two parameters and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers expected return shape (findings packet, gaps, contradictions, hop, citation_uri), edge cases (unanswered facets, unresolvable citations), and operational expectations (latency, paywall). Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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?

Input schema already documents both parameters at 100% coverage, so baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful depth semantics (e.g., 'standard' adds a gap-recovery hop, 'thorough' chases leads, contradicts[] scan) that go beyond the schema's concise enum text, and clarifies that broad questions are expected.

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 clearly states a specific verb ('grounded multi-source research') and resource ('Pipeworx's 1497 STRUCTURED data sources'), and explicitly draws a contrast with 'NOT open-web search'. It differentiates itself from siblings like ask_pipeworx by describing its parallel decomposition and structured-data scope.

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 vs ask_pipeworx (broad/multi-part vs single lookup), warns against using it for breaking/current news and names the alternative, and explains depth-based behavior. It covers the account/payment prerequisite and directs unsigned 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 NYC Open Data 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 have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are nearly identical routers, and the five polymarket_* tools all perform prediction-market analysis. Even with detailed descriptions, an agent could easily select the wrong one, especially since the server name 'NYC Open Data' does not hint at this focus.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent lowercase snake_case verb_noun pattern (e.g., list_subscriptions, generate_llms_txt, resolve_entity) and families share prefixes like polymarket_ and pipeworx_. Minor deviations exist with one-word names like datasets, metadata, and forget, but overall the naming is readable and predictable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is far too many for a server labeled 'NYC Open Data,' where only 3 tools (datasets, metadata, query) actually serve that purpose. The rest form a general-purpose data platform, but even then the count is high and includes many redundant meta-tools and overlapping Polymarket utilities, making the set feel bloated.

Completeness3/5

For the NYC Open Data domain, the three dedicated tools cover search, metadata, and query—adequate core functionality but missing export or dataset management capabilities. For the broader Pipeworx platform, coverage is strong (routing, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, subscriptions, memory), but the severe mismatch between the server name and actual scope leaves a major completeness gap.

Resources