Skip to main content
Glama

Geonames

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?

Even though annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints, the description adds substantial context: account and plan requirements, gap[] behavior with an explicit 'never invented' guarantee, citation_uri always being fetchable, semantic excerpting of large records, contradictions[] for deeper depths, and expected latency 15-90s. 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 information-dense; every sentence carries a distinct behavioral or usage fact. The front-loading of account requirements before the core purpose is a minor structural inefficiency, and the citation_uri/resolvable-record guarantee is repeated in slightly different wording.

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?

Given there is no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return packet (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation_uri), gap handling, hop fields, contradictions, and timeout expectations. An agent has all the context needed to invoke the tool correctly and interpret its output.

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%, so the schema fully documents both 'question' and 'depth'. The description adds context like the paid plan for 'thorough' and second-hop recovery behavior, but these are already stated or closely implied in the schema, so it does not meaningfully go beyond the structured field docs.

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 opens with 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1499 STRUCTURED data sources' and explains the decomposition-and-parallel-routing behavior. It explicitly contrasts with open-web search and ask_pipeworx, so an agent can clearly tell what this tool does and what it is not.

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 conditions: use ask_pipeworx if not signed in, use deep_research for broad/multi-part questions over structured data, and use ask_pipeworx for single lookups or non-structured current-news topics. These exclusions and alternatives are clearly stated with no ambiguity.

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

All Geonames 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded; multiple polymarket_* scanners), and the mix of unrelated domains makes it hard to tell which tool is canonical for a task. The few geographic tools are distinct, but they are buried among dozens of non-geographic tools.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is a mix of verb_noun (search_geonames, resolve_entity), proper-noun prefixes (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), and descriptive phrases (ask_pipeworx, bet_research, scan_competitor_ai_presence). No consistent pattern or verb style across the set.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is far more than a Geonames-focused server needs, and most are unrelated to geospatial data. The count would be borderline for a general data platform, but it is excessive and unfocused for the stated server name.

Completeness1/5

The geographic surface is severely incomplete: only four tools (search_geonames, get_nearby, find_postal_codes, get_timezone) cover a tiny sliver of typical Geonames functionality like reverse geocoding, elevation, or distance calculations. The many non-geographic tools do not compensate for the missing core domain coverage.

Resources