Skip to main content
Glama

Geoapify

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description goes well beyond these by disclosing account/payment requirements, the non-open-web nature, parallel decomposition, the findings packet shape, never-invented gaps[], hop fields, citation_uri provenance, contradictions[], semantic excerpting, and expected latency. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is long but every sentence earns its place: account requirements, alternatives, core mechanism, return format, use cases, exclusions, depth behavior, citation guarantees, excerpting, and latency. Critical operational information (account, when NOT to use) is front-loaded. No filler or tautology.

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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully characterizes the return value: verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citation, gaps[], hop field, citation_uri, and contradictions[]. It also covers authentication, pricing, expected latency, and fallback behavior. For a complex research tool, nothing an agent needs to call it correctly 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% and the schema descriptions for both `question` and `depth` are already detailed. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema: the paid-tier requirement for `thorough`, explicit multi-part question acceptance, and real-world examples like 'compare X and Y's regulatory + financial exposure'. This is more than the baseline 3, though the schema still carries most of the parameter documentation burden.

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...' and immediately distinguishes itself from siblings: 'this is NOT open-web search' and 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx'. It decomposes the question into facets and routes to 5,724 tools in parallel, which is highly specific and separates it clearly from ask_pipeworx and other siblings.

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 when-to-use guidance is abundant: 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data', 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx', 'For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS... prefer ask_pipeworx', and 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead.' It also explains depth-level tradeoffs, making the decision between this tool and alternatives fully operational.

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

All Geoapify 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

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, entity_profile, compare_entities, and validate_claim, all retrieving entity data. Agents may struggle to choose correctly between them. Likewise, bet_research, polymarket_edges, and polymarket_arbitrage cover similar prediction market territory.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use underscores, but the verb/noun order varies: compare_entities (verb_noun), entity_profile (noun_noun), scan_competitor_ai_presence (verb_noun), bet_research (noun_verb). Some names are overly long (scan_competitor_ai_presence). The pattern is readable but not fully consistent.

Tool Count3/5

With 31 tools, the count is high but not extreme. However, the set covers geospatial, data retrieval, prediction markets, npm scanning, and memory/feedback - too broad for a single server. Many tools feel added without clear justification, making the set feel bloated.

Completeness2/5

The geospatial subset is incomplete (missing elevation, distance matrix, isochrones). The data access tools overlap rather than form a complete API surface (e.g., no entity update/delete). Prediction market tools are numerous but redundant. The server tries to do too much and lacks depth in any area.

Resources