Skip to main content
Glama

Digitalnz

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 1500 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 5,743 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 and idempotent behavior, and the description adds substantial non-annotation context: account/login requirements, paid tier for 'thorough', 15-90s latency, the findings-packet shape (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation_uri), a no-fabrication guarantee via gaps[], contradictions[] for deeper depths, and the conditional nature of citation_uri. There is no contradiction with 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is long but dense and front-loaded with the most critical facts: account requirement first, then core capability and alternatives. Every sentence delivers operational or selection value—no filler or repetition. Given the tool's complexity, this length is justified and well organized.

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 research tool with no output schema, the description covers return packet contents, hop fields, citation resolvability, gap behavior, contradiction handling, latency, authentication/paywall constraints, and usage boundaries. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call it, how to set depth, and what to expect back.

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 real value beyond the schema by elaborating what 'standard' and 'thorough' do (gap recovery, lead chasing, contradiction scan), the latency implications, and the paid-plan requirement for 'thorough'. The 'quick' depth is only in the schema, but the schema already explains it adequately.

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 verb and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1500 STRUCTURED data sources' via decomposition and parallel routing. It also clearly distinguishes itself by saying 'this is NOT open-web search' and by naming the sibling alternative ask_pipeworx for single lookups. An agent can immediately identify this as a broad multi-faceted research tool over structured data.

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, use ask_pipeworx for single lookups, and prefer ask_pipeworx for breaking/colloquial news topics. It also includes the account/paywall gate: if not signed in, use ask_pipeworx. No ambiguity remains about which tool to pick.

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

All Digitalnz 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 are difficult to distinguish: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, and ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and ask_pipeworx have fuzzy boundaries. The polymarket_* family plus bet_research also overlap heavily, requiring agents to carefully parse long descriptions to avoid misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

Naming is predominantly snake_case with a verb-first pattern (ask_, search, subscribe, unsubscribe, list_) and clear prefix families like polymarket_ and pipeworx_. Minor deviations like ai_visibility_check and entity_profile use noun-first phrasing, but the overall pattern is still predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is heavy for any single server, and the count is especially inappropriate given the server is named Digitalnz but only two tools (search, record) serve that domain. The rest form an unrelated grab-bag of data research, prediction-market, AI-visibility, memory, and utility tools.

Completeness3/5

The research workflow is fairly well covered: ask/grounded/deep modes, entity resolution, comparisons, claim validation, subscriptions, and alerts all exist. However, the DigitalNZ surface is nearly absent—just search and record—which is a significant gap for the declared server name, while other domains like AI visibility and npm dependencies are isolated one-offs.

Resources