Skip to main content
Glama

Data Nj

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, and idempotent hints, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: required authentication, paid tier restriction, parallel tool routing, decompression into facets, output packet contents, gap handling, contradiction scanning, citation fetchability guarantees, and expected latency. No description content 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 information-dense, and it front-loads the most decision-critical facts: account requirement, alternative tool, and core scope. A small amount of repetition exists around citations and the 'not open-web' point, but each sentence generally contributes necessary operational or routing detail.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description fully compensates by explaining the shape and meaning of the return value: findings with evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation, gaps[], contradictions[], and hop field. It also covers depth semantics, latency expectations, and limitations for non-catalog topics, making it complete enough for an agent to invoke and interpret the result correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, and the description still adds meaningful semantics on top. It clarifies that 'question' can be broad and multi-part, and explains what each depth level ('quick', 'standard', 'thorough') actually does in terms of hops, gap recovery, lead chasing, and contradiction scans, going well beyond the schema descriptions.

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 identifies the tool as a grounded, multi-source research tool over Pipeworx's structured data sources, explicitly stating it decomposes questions into facets and routes them in parallel. It distinguishes itself from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx, making its purpose unmistakable even among many siblings.

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 or multi-part structured-data questions, and explicitly directs single lookups to ask_pipeworx and breaking-news/colloquial-current-topics to ask_pipeworx. It also notes the account requirement and the paid threshold for the 'thorough' depth, leaving no ambiguity about when this tool should be selected.

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

All Data Nj 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but some overlap exists between ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, which all query Pipeworx data in different modes. However, their descriptions clearly differentiate them. Similarly, memory and subscription tools are separate. Overall, an agent can distinguish tools with moderate effort.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names mostly follow verb_noun pattern with snake_case, such as ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, generate_llms_txt. However, a few tools like 'datasets', 'metadata', and 'query' are single nouns, breaking the pattern. Overall, naming is consistent enough for an agent to predict behavior.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is above the typical range for an MCP server, but the server covers a wide domain (SEC, FRED, FDA, prediction markets, etc.) with specialized tools. The count is borderline heavy but justifiable given the scope. Some tools like memory and subscription management add to the count but serve necessary auxiliary functions.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is comprehensive for its intended domain of structured data querying and analysis. It covers data retrieval, entity resolution, comparison, news, subscriptions, and memory. Minor gaps include dependency scanning only for npm and lack of direct web search, but meta-tools like ask_pipeworx fill many needs. Overall, it supports common workflows well.

Resources