Skip to main content
Glama

Data Toronto

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?

Beyond the annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.), the description reveals the embedding model (BGE-base-en), similarity method (cosine), window size (500-char overlapping), character limit (200K), and truncation behavior with a flag. This fully informs the agent of operational constraints.

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?

The description is compact (~100 words) and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds distinct information: purpose, usage scenario, technical details, and integration with sibling. No redundancy or filler.

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 the moderate complexity (3 params, no output schema, but rich annotations), the description covers all critical behavioral aspects: input constraints, search mechanics, return format (offsets and scores), and tool relationships. An agent can fully understand how to invoke and use this tool.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by explaining the workflow ('pass the text you already pulled') and giving query examples, but it mostly reinforces schema info rather than adding entirely new semantic meaning.

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 'Semantic search INSIDE a fetched record' with a specific verb and resource. It explicitly distinguishes itself from the sibling tool 'ask_pipeworx_grounded' by explaining how they pair together, making the purpose unambiguous.

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 explains exactly when to use this tool: 'Use when the record is too big to cram into the prompt.' It also details the benefit (saves context, returns passages with offsets) and how to combine it with a sibling tool for grounded answers.

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

All Data Toronto 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

Multiple query entry points have overlapping boundaries: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, suggest_questions and discover_tools both serve discovery/onboarding, and validate_claim overlaps with ask_pipeworx_grounded. With 34 tools including five Polymarket edge/scanner tools, an agent can easily select the wrong meta-tool despite the detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case, so there is no style chaos, but the pattern is inconsistent: verb-led names like ask_pipeworx and validate_claim mix with noun-led names like entity_profile, recent_alerts, and polymarket_arbitrage, plus bare memory verbs like remember/recall/forget. Related tools are also not aligned, such as ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is too many for a server branded 'Data Toronto', and many tools are only loosely related to the core data-access purpose: ask_pipeworx_beta, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, ai_visibility_check, and the memory trio feel like bolt-ons. Even granting Pipeworx's broad research scope, the set is over-stuffed rather than well-scoped.

Completeness4/5

The data-research surface is unusually comprehensive: search, deep research, entity resolution/profiling, comparison, claim validation, alerts/subscriptions, and Toronto open-data querying are all covered. The main gaps are Toronto-side metadata details like resource schemas/columns and a way to browse the full dataset catalogue without a keyword.

Resources