Skip to main content
Glama

Hpo Api

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?

Annotations already cover readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive traits; the description adds substantial behavioral context: account/plan requirements, 15-90s latency, gaps[] instead of invented answers, resolvable citation_uri, hop and contradictions fields, and semantic excerpting. There is no contradiction with 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 dense and front-loaded with the most critical decision gate: account requirement. Nearly every sentence earns its place, though the depth-related details partially duplicate the schema's enum descriptions and could be tightened.

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 tool with no output schema and many behavioral nuances, this description is remarkably complete: auth, pricing, latency, output packet shape, gaps, citations, contradiction handling, excerpting, and sibling routing are all covered. An agent has enough to select and invoke it correctly.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds genuine value by explaining that 'thorough' needs a paid plan, that 'standard' recovers gaps and scans contradictions, that 'quick' is single-hop, and that questions may be broad/multi-part, though some of this restates the enum.

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 1500 structured data sources in one call, with decomposition and parallel routing. It also differentiates itself from ask_pipeworx and notes that it is NOT open-web search, making the purpose unmistakable.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data', 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx', and for breaking/current-news topics 'prefer ask_pipeworx'. It also states the account requirement and directs unsigned-in users to ask_pipeworx, leaving no ambiguity about when to select this tool.

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

All Hpo Api 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have distinct purposes, but there is overlap among the Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_kalshi_spread) and between ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence. Detailed descriptions help, but some tools could still be confused.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names follow a consistent verb_noun snake_case pattern (e.g., ai_visibility_check, resolve_entity, validate_claim). No mixing of conventions.

Tool Count2/5

With 27 tools spanning HPO, data queries, betting, memory, and utilities, the server is over-scoped. It aggregates multiple domains that would be better split into separate servers. The count feels excessive for a coherent set.

Completeness4/5

Within each domain (HPO ontology, Pipeworx data, Polymarket betting, etc.), the tool surface is reasonably complete. However, the overall server lacks a single clear purpose, making it hard to assess completeness holistically.

Resources