Skip to main content
Glama

Htmlentities

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 the readOnly/idempotent/openWorld annotations, the description discloses account requirements, parallel decomposition, the exact findings-packet shape, the never-invented gaps[] behavior, hop fields, resolvable citation_uri, contradictions scanning, semantic excerpting, and expected latency. This is far richer behavioral detail than the annotations provide.

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 dense and front-loaded with the critical account caveat, and every clause earns its place given the tool's complexity. It could be slightly tightened or broken into structured sentences, but there is no genuine filler.

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?

Even though there is no output schema, the description fully specifies what the findings packet contains—verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citation, gaps[], hop, contradictions[]—plus runtime expectations and auth requirements. Nothing needed to invoke this tool correctly is missing.

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?

The schema already covers 100% of the parameters, including detailed enum meanings for depth and question format. The description reinforces that broad questions are acceptable and echoes the depth behavior, but adds no new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema provides.

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 ('research') and resource ('Pipeworx's 1500 STRUCTURED data sources'), and clearly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from the ask_pipeworx sibling. This lets an agent select it confidently without guessing.

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?

Explicitly names when NOT to use the tool: if not signed in, use ask_pipeworx; for a single lookup use ask_pipeworx; for breaking/current news prefer ask_pipeworx. It also names the ideal use case ('broad/multi-part questions over structured data'), leaving no ambiguity.

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

All Htmlentities 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical), and ask_pipeworx_grounded share the same routing core, while bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and polymarket_fill_risk all target prediction-market edge detection. The descriptions are detailed, but an agent must read a lot of nuance to avoid selecting the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and readable, but the convention is mixed: verb_noun names like encode_html and resolve_entity sit alongside bare verbs like remember and forget, and noun-phrase names like entity_profile, recent_changes, and polymarket_fill_risk. The ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_* families are internally consistent, but there is no single predictable pattern across the whole set.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools this exceeds the 25+ threshold for a heavy set. The bloat is especially noticeable because the server is named Htmlentities yet only encode_html and decode_html relate to that purpose; the rest are unrelated Pipeworx research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription utilities.

Completeness4/5

The Pipeworx surface is broadly complete: ask/grounded/deep_research/discover/suggest cover data access, entity_profile/compare_entities/recent_changes/validate_claim cover entity workflows, and subscriptions and memory have create/list/delete lifecycles. Minor gaps such as no update operation for subscriptions or memories are workable, and encode/decode fully covers the literal Htmlentities purpose.

Resources