Skip to main content
Glama

dictionary

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 1506 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 5,767 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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / depth / description
      Previous value: -"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3 (single hop), standard=5 (default; adds a gap-recovery hop that re-angles unanswered facets + a contradictions[] scan across findings), thorough=8 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus the contradictions[] scan)."New value: +"How 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)."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / depth / description
      Previous value: -"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3 (single hop), standard=5 (default; adds a gap-recovery hop that re-angles unanswered facets), thorough=8 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus a contradictions[] scan across findings)."New value: +"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3 (single hop), standard=5 (default; adds a gap-recovery hop that re-angles unanswered facets + a contradictions[] scan across findings), thorough=8 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus the contradictions[] scan)."
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / depth / description
      Previous value: -"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3, standard=5 (default), thorough=8 (paid plans). \"thorough\" also runs a second ITERATIVE hop — a planner inspects the first-pass findings/gaps and chases the most valuable leads or recovers gaps, resolving multi-step questions in one call."New value: +"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3 (single hop), standard=5 (default; adds a gap-recovery hop that re-angles unanswered facets), thorough=8 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus a contradictions[] scan across findings)."
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / depth / description
      Previous value: -"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3, standard=5 (default), thorough=8 (paid plans)."New value: +"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3, standard=5 (default), thorough=8 (paid plans). \"thorough\" also runs a second ITERATIVE hop — a planner inspects the first-pass findings/gaps and chases the most valuable leads or recovers gaps, resolving multi-step questions in one call."
  5. Added

TDQS

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses key behaviors: parallel decomposition across tools, gap[] reporting for unanswered facets, stable fetchable citations, contradiction scanning for standard/thorough depths, semantic excerpting, and latency expectations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is information-dense and front-loaded with account requirements and sibling alternatives, but it is a single sprawling paragraph that mixes account info, methodology, output details, depth behavior, caveats, and latency. The content is valuable, but structure could be improved with clearer separation.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully carries the burden of explaining return values: findings packet contents, evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citations, gaps[], contradictions[], and hop fields. It also covers prerequisites, alternatives, latency, and depth behavior. Very complete for an agent to select and invoke 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%, but the description adds meaningful nuance: it explains what each depth value means for hops, gap recovery, contradiction scanning, and paid access. It also reinforces that the question parameter should be allowed to be broad and multi-part, which the schema already states.

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 1506 structured data sources in one call. It explicitly contrasts itself with open-web search and distinguishes itself from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx, making it easy for an agent to know what this tool is for.

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?

It gives explicit routing guidance: use ask_pipeworx when not signed in, for single lookups, or for breaking/current news; use deep_research for broad/multi-part structured-data questions. This is strong when-to-use versus when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All dictionary 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

Several tools have near-identical purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical today), and ask_pipeworx_grounded are the same router with only an evidence-extraction difference. polymarket_edges, bet_research, and polymarket_arbitrage also overlap heavily in surfacing mispricings, and ai_visibility_check is essentially a single-entity version of scan_competitor_ai_presence.

Naming Consistency3/5

There are recognizable patterns: ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, verb_noun pairs like define_word, get_synonyms, resolve_entity. However, conventions are mixed across the set — ask_pipeworx_beta uses a suffix, ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence are phrased in different styles, and memory tools (remember/recall/forget) follow yet another pattern. Readable but not predictable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is heavy for a single server, and many of them are meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions, ask_pipeworx variants, pipeworx_trending, pipeworx_feedback, memory tools) that inflate the surface. The count would be defensible if each tool were orthogonal, but the overlap in research/Polymarket/memory areas means several tools do not earn their place.

Completeness4/5

For the actual Pipeworx data-access domain, coverage is quite rich: lookup, grounded answers, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, claim validation, subscriptions, memory, and discovery tools all exist. Minor gaps remain (e.g., no tool to manage account/API keys, patents soft-fail), but the core query-research-monitor lifecycle is well covered. The server name 'dictionary' is misleading — only two tools serve a dictionary purpose — yet the inferred domain from descriptions is a data gateway, for which the surface is strong.

Resources