Skip to main content
Glama

Data Denver

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Search Within a Source

search_within
Read-onlyIdempotent

Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record. Pass the text you already pulled (e.g. a SEC 10-K body, an article, a long tool result) plus a natural-language query; get back the top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores. Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt — search_within saves context, returns only the passages that matter, and every passage carries an offset so the agent can verify a verbatim quote. Pairs with ask_pipeworx_grounded: fetch with the gateway, ground over the relevant passages instead of the whole document. BGE-base-en embeddings + cosine over 500-char overlapping windows; cap is 200K chars (longer inputs are truncated and flagged).

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
textYesThe document text to search inside (max ~200K chars).
limitNoMax passages to return (1-20, default 5).
queryYesNatural-language query — what passages do you want? E.g. "supply-chain risk", "fiscal year 2024 revenue", "drug interactions with warfarin".

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses technical details beyond annotations: 'BGE-base-en embeddings + cosine over 500-char overlapping windows; cap is 200K chars (longer inputs are truncated and flagged)'. Annotations already indicate idempotent and read-only, and description reinforces safe behavior. No contradictions.

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?

Concise, front-loaded paragraph of 5 sentences. Every sentence adds distinct value: purpose, use case, pairing suggestion, technical details, and limitations. No fluff.

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 no output schema, the description clearly explains what is returned (top-N passages with character offsets and similarity scores). Covers essential behavioral aspects (embedding method, window size, character limit, truncation flag). Complements annotations and schema perfectly.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds value by providing examples for the 'query' parameter (e.g., 'supply-chain risk') and clarifying that the 'text' parameter takes fetched document text. Also implicitly describes output (character offsets, similarity scores). Adds meaningful context beyond schema.

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?

Explicitly states 'semantic search INSIDE a fetched record' with clear verb (search) and resource (inside fetched text). Distinguishes from siblings by specifying it works within a given text and pairs with 'ask_pipeworx_grounded' for grounding. No ambiguity.

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 usage scenario: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt—search_within saves context'. Also explains benefits (returning only relevant passages with offsets for verification) and suggests pairing with another tool ('ask_pipeworx_grounded'). Comprehensive guidance.

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

All Data Denver 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Tools are richly described with clear use-cases, but several clusters overlap: ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research are all question-routing tools with similar names, and the five polymarket_* tools cover adjacent prediction-market analysis. An agent could easily pick the wrong one without reading the full descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

All names are snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun or domain_noun pattern (compare_entities, resolve_entity, denver_query, polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending). There are minor deviations like single verbs (remember, forget), adjective-first names (recent_alerts, deep_research), and domain-prefixed groups, but the overall style is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is a large surface for one server, pushing beyond the 25+ threshold where agents struggle to choose. While the platform is genuinely multi-domain (data lookup, prediction markets, Denver open data, memory, subscriptions, npm checks, llms.txt generation), several niche clusters like the 5-tool Polymarket suite and 3-tool memory trio inflate the count.

Completeness4/5

The server covers its domain well: general querying, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution, company profiling, change feeds, subscription lifecycle (subscribe/list/unsubscribe/alerts), memory lifecycle (remember/recall/forget), and discovery (discover_tools, suggest_questions). Minor gaps exist—such as no direct browsing of all Pipeworx sources—but agents can work around them.

Resources