Skip to main content
Glama

Gdacs

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description discloses important behaviors: account/paid-plan requirements, NOT open-web search, findings packet structure with gaps[] never invented, second-hop gap recovery, contradictions[] for standard/thorough, semantic excerpting, and timing ranges. This is rich and exceeds what annotations convey.

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 front-loads the critical account requirement and scopes the tool immediately. Some sentences repeat schema content (e.g., depth behavior), but most add unique value such as timing, citations, and excerpts. It is dense yet coherent, with each major section earning its place.

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 carries the burden of explaining return values — and it does: verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation_uri, gaps[], contradiction[], and hop field. It also covers account requirements, alternatives, timing, and failure behavior, making it complete for an agent to call correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100% and already thoroughly explains both `question` and `depth`, including the difference between standard and thorough. The description adds a bit of nuance ('depth:"thorough" needs a paid plan') and examples, but largely restates schema content, so it meets the baseline without exceeding it.

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 uses a specific verb and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1500 STRUCTURED data sources ... in ONE call.' It explicitly contrasts with open-web search and names sibling tools like ask_pipeworx, making the tool's distinct role clear.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data.' It gives direct alternatives: 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx' and 'For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS... prefer ask_pipeworx.' Also includes account prerequisites and fallback if not signed in.

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

All Gdacs 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear, distinct purposes, but the three ask_pipeworx variants (especially ask_pipeworx_beta, identical to ask_pipeworx) and the six Polymarket tools overlap conceptually and could cause misselection. Detailed descriptions largely compensate, but the boundaries between some meta-tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx vs deep_research vs bet_research) require careful reading.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case, but conventions are mixed: verb-first (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, discover_tools), noun-first compounds (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage), and single-word nouns (event, events, rss). The pattern is predictable for common actions but inconsistent across the set, making it harder to guess names for related tasks.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, the count is heavy and the server named 'Gdacs' includes many unrelated tools (Polymarket, npm scanning, AI visibility), indicating scope creep. Several tools could be consolidated (e.g., the ask_pipeworx family and multiple pattern-market scanners), and the breadth dilutes the disaster-alerting focus implied by the server name.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers core workflows: data querying (ask/research/validate), entity profiling, prediction-market analysis (arbitrage/edges/fill risk), and subscription management (create/list/cancel). Minor gaps exist, such as no direct fetch tool for a specific Pipeworx pack and limited GDACS event management (only read operations), but these are workable with the provided meta-tools.

Resources