Skip to main content
Glama

Emailable

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 1497 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 5,721 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 annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive), the description discloses account requirements, paid tier for thorough, latency expectations, gap behavior ('never invented'), resolvable citations, semantic excerpting, contradictions scan, and hop fields. These are rich behavioral details not carried by annotations, and they do not contradict 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is long but densely informative; every sentence covers a distinct aspect (prerequisites, alternatives, output structure, depth behaviors, latency). The most critical context is front-loaded with the account requirement. It could be tightened, but the length is justified by the complexity of the tool.

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 fully covers prerequisites, return format (findings packet with verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation, gaps, contradictions, hop), latency, and operational behavior. An agent has all the context needed to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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 extra value by clarifying that 'question' can be 'broad/multi-part' and by explaining the behavioral consequences of each depth value beyond the enum descriptions, such as gap recovery and iteration. This moves it above the 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 states a specific verb and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1497 STRUCTURED data sources ... in ONE call.' It explicitly differentiates from siblings by naming ask_pipeworx as the alternative for single lookups and breaking news. The 'NOT open-web search' clarification further disambiguates it from general search tools.

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 questions over structured data' and names the alternative for single lookups, breaking news, and unsigned-in users. It even explains the depth tiers and when each is appropriate, leaving no ambiguity about tool selection.

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

All Emailable 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

A4.4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but the ask_pipeworx family (standard, beta, grounded) and validate_claim vs ask_pipeworx_grounded may cause some confusion for agents despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent snake_case pattern, and most are verb_noun structures (e.g., ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, resolve_entity), making them predictable and easy to distinguish.

Tool Count4/5

With 32 tools, the set is larger than ideal but well-justified by the broad scope of data sources and functionalities (email verification, SEC/FDA lookups, prediction market analysis, memory, subscriptions).

Completeness5/5

The tool set covers the full pipeline from data discovery (discover_tools, suggest_questions) to retrieval, analysis, comparison, verification, and monitoring, with no obvious gaps for its intended use cases.

Resources