Skip to main content
Glama

Data Kcmo

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 1498 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 5,735 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?

The description richly discloses behavior beyond annotations: parallel decomposition, routing to 5,724 tools, findings packet contents, gaps[] for unanswered facets, never-invented evidence, second-hop gap recovery, contradictions[], semantic excerpting, citation fetchability, and expected latency. Annotations are consistent; no contradiction.

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 and front-loaded with the critical account requirement and fallback instruction. It covers usage, behavior, output shape, and latency in one organized block, though it could be tightened without losing key details.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description is unusually complete: it explains return fields, citation semantics, gap behavior, contradictions, excerpting, latency, account requirements, depth differences, and when to use sibling tools. An agent has enough context to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 already 100%, giving the baseline 3, but the description adds meaning: it explains depth modes' behavioral consequences, what 'standard' and 'thorough' add, and affirms that broad/multi-part questions are acceptable. It does not deeply elaborate the 'quick' mode, but overall it adds value beyond the 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?

The description states a specific action and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1497 STRUCTURED data sources... in ONE call.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx, making its purpose and differentiation clear.

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 gives explicit when-to-use guidance: best for broad/multi-part structured-data questions, while single lookups and breaking/current-news topics should use ask_pipeworx. It also provides an account/paywall gate and names a fallback tool for unsigned-in users.

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

All Data Kcmo 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research cluster is highly overlapping—beta is explicitly identical right now and grounded differs mainly in answer extraction. Several other pairs (ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence, and the six prediction-market tools) also blur boundaries, making misselection likely.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are uniformly snake_case and benefit from clear prefixes (ask_pipeworx_, kcmo_, polymarket_, pipeworx_). However, conventions are mixed between bare verbs (forget, recall, remember), noun phrases (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, recent_alerts), and verb_noun forms, and similar names like polymarket_edges vs polymarket_edge_tracker add confusion.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well into the bloat range, and only 3 are actually Kansas City-specific despite the server name. The surface bundles prediction markets, memory, feedback, llms.txt generation, and npm scanning alongside data lookup, making it heavy and unfocused; several meta-tools could be collapsed.

Completeness4/5

As a read-only data research platform, the surface is quite complete: discovery, querying, grounded answers, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, claim verification, subscriptions, and memory are all covered with few dead ends. Minor gaps exist—no subscription update, no direct citation-URI fetch tool, and a thin KC-specific set—but agents can work around them.

Resources