Skip to main content
Glama

Ieee Standards

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?

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses auth and paid-tier requirements, parallel facet routing, gap[] behavior that is never invented, contradictions[], per-finding hop and citation_uri fields, semantic excerpting, and specific latency expectations (15-60s, up to ~90s for thorough). This goes far beyond what annotations provide and contradicts none of them.

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-loaded: most critical routing and account constraints appear first, followed by core behavior and then advanced details. A few phrases are redundant (one-call emphasis and gap behavior are restated), but given the tool's complexity, the length is justified and well-ordered.

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 without an output schema, the description specifies the findings packet composition (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation), gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, fetchable citation_uri guarantee, excerpting behavior, and latency. An agent has nearly everything needed to invoke the tool correctly and understand what the response will look like.

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%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning by connecting depth choices to pricing, latency, gap-recovery hops, and contradictions[], and by giving illustrative broad/multi-part questions for the question parameter. Some depth details repeat the schema, but there is still meaningful added context.

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 clear, specific action and resource: grounded multi-source research across 1500 structured data sources in ONE call, with parallel routing across 5,743 tools. It explicitly distinguishes this from open-web search and from the ask_pipeworx single-lookup sibling, so an agent can tell them apart without opening schemas.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use ask_pipeworx if not signed in, use ask_pipeworx for a single lookup, and prefer ask_pipeworx for breaking news or open-web topics since deep_research will return empty gaps. It names alternatives directly and gives concrete example queries for the intended use case.

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

All Ieee Standards 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

Several tools blur together: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer factual questions with overlapping routing behavior, while polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and bet_research all surface prediction-market opportunities. Long descriptions help, but the boundaries between these clusters are genuinely unclear, and the three IEEE tools are buried in a sea of unrelated Pipeworx tools.

Naming Consistency4/5

The naming is predominantly snake_case with clear family prefixes like ieee_, ask_pipeworx_, and polymarket_, and most tools follow a readable verb_noun or noun_verb shape. Minor deviations exist (remember/recall/forget, bet_research, pipeworx_trending) but there is no camelCase/mixed-convention problem, so the overall pattern is predictable.

Tool Count1/5

A server named 'Ieee Standards' exposes 34 tools, yet only three of them (ieee_search, ieee_standard_search, ieee_article) actually serve that domain. The remaining 31 tools form a general Pipeworx data, prediction-market, memory, and subscription platform, which is an extreme scope mismatch for the stated server purpose.

Completeness4/5

For the IEEE lookup domain, the three IEEE tools cover the core read-only workflow: broad corpus search, standards-specific search, and full metadata retrieval by article number or DOI. Minor gaps exist (browsing by committee, revision/status history, full-text access) but those are workable or inherently restricted by IEEE's paywall.

Resources