Skip to main content
Glama

Elife

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Goes far beyond annotations by disclosing account/auth needs, latency (15-60s, up to ~90s), the never-invented guarantee with gaps[], citation fetchability, semantic excerpting, and depth-dependent behaviors like contradictions[]. No contradiction with readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints.

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 densely packed and logically ordered: auth first, then core function, alternatives, depth behavior, output guarantees, latency. Nearly every sentence earns its place, though some details overlap with the schema's depth enum descriptions.

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 explains return structure: verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation_uri, gaps[], contradictions[], and hop. Combined with usage and auth guidance, nothing an agent needs to correctly select and invoke the tool 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 incremental value with concrete question examples ('compare X and Y's regulatory + financial exposure') and by clarifying the paid 'thorough' constraint and hop/gap-recovery mechanics, pushing it slightly above baseline.

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 names the verb (research), the resource (Pipeworx's 1499 structured data sources), and the output (findings packet). It explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from the ask_pipeworx sibling, so an agent can tell them apart without inspecting schemas.

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 when-to-use guidance (broad/multi-part structured-data questions), when-not-to-use guidance (single lookups, breaking news, unauthenticated users), and names the alternative (ask_pipeworx). It also discloses the paid-plan requirement for thorough depth.

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

All Elife 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation5/5

Each tool has a clearly distinct purpose. Tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are differentiated by reliability mode; entity_profile vs compare_entities serve single vs multi-entity; and memorization, subscription, and search tools occupy separate operational niches. No two tools could be easily confused.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern. Some use verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, validate_claim), others are noun phrases (polymarket_arbitrage, ai_visibility_check), and some mix verb+noun with underscores inconsistently (generate_llms_txt, scan_competitor_ai_presence). This lack of uniformity makes the surface harder to navigate.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is borderline high. The server spans multiple domains (data query, prediction markets, eLife, memory, subscriptions), and each domain gets several tools, making the overall surface feel bloated. While individual tools are justified, the total count strains discoverability and hints at scope creep.

Completeness2/5

The tool set is incomplete relative to its stated breadth. For a server named 'Elife', only 3 tools actually serve eLife; the rest are dominated by Pipeworx and Polymarket. Within the query/data domain, coverage is deep but lacks write/modify tools. Prediction market analysis lacks execution tools (no order placement). This leaves clear gaps for agents that need to act on the data.

Resources