Skip to main content
Glama

Dostuff

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 1499 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 5,738 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?

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description adds crucial behavior: deferred auth requirement, paid tier for thorough depth, explicit 'NOT open-web search', gaps[] for unanswered facets, 'never invented' findings, guaranteed fetchable citation_uri, contradictions[] scanning, semantic excerpting, and timing expectations. No contradiction with 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 every section carries distinct operational or routing information — auth, tool boundaries, return packet structure, gaps, citations, contradictions, timing. It is front-loaded with the account requirement and core distinction from open-web search, though it could be tightened slightly without losing value.

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 compensates by detailing the findings packet (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation), gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, citation_uri resolvability, semantic excerpting, and expected latency. It also covers prerequisites (account, paid plan) and when to use alternatives. Nothing critical is missing.

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 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful nuance beyond the schema by noting that depth:'thorough' requires a paid plan and clarifying the behavior of standard vs thorough hops. The question parameter is already well-covered by the schema, so the incremental value is moderate.

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 1497 STRUCTURED data sources in one call. It clearly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx, making it easy for an agent to recognize what this tool uniquely does.

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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data', with direct alternatives — 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx' and 'For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS ... prefer ask_pipeworx'. It also notes the account/paid-tier requirement and when results may be mostly gaps, fully covering the routing decision.

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

All Dostuff 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set contains near-duplicate tools (ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly 'currently matches ask_pipeworx exactly') and a dense family of six polymarket_* tools whose boundaries are subtle, plus overlapping onboarding tools in discover_tools and suggest_questions. Detailed descriptions mitigate some confusion, but several tools are difficult to tell apart without reading their full text.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and readable, with consistent prefix families (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_, pipeworx_), but the overall structure is mixed: bare verbs (remember, forget, subscribe), adjective+noun names (recent_alerts, recent_changes), and noun+noun domain tags (polymarket_edges, entity_profile) rather than a uniform verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools the set exceeds the 25-tool threshold and feels heavy, carrying an experimental duplicate of ask_pipeworx and a six-tool polymarket family that could plausibly be consolidated. The breadth reflects several unrelated domains bundled into one server rather than a focused scope.

Completeness3/5

The data-research core (ask, grounded, deep_research, profiles, comparisons, claim validation, entity resolution) and the prediction-market analysis suite are thoroughly covered, and memory plus subscription lifecycles are complete. However, the events domain the server is named for is thin (only events + metros), and the overall set lacks a single coherent purpose against which completeness can be cleanly judged.

Resources