Skip to main content
Glama

Imei

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses account requirements, paid depth tiers, parallel decomposition behavior, gap reporting, contradiction detection, citation semantics, semantic excerpting, and expected latency. This is thorough behavioral disclosure for a complex tool.

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 section earns its place: account constraints, alternative routing, core purpose, output format, depth semantics, and latency. It is organized with clear signposts and front-loads the critical access constraint before usage details.

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 explains what the agent will receive: findings with evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citations, gaps, contradictions, and hop metadata. It also covers auth, alternatives, depth choices, and timing, making it complete for correct invocation.

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?

The input schema already covers both parameters well, but the description adds meaningful context about how depth controls hop behavior, how the paid tier unlocks thorough, and that questions are intended to be broad/multi-part natural language. It slightly expands on the schema without needing to compensate for gaps.

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 clearly defines the tool as grounded multi-source research across 1,500 structured data sources, with decomposition, parallel routing, and a findings packet as the output. It explicitly contrasts itself with open-web search and names ask_pipeworx for simpler lookups, giving strong sibling differentiation.

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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use it for broad/multi-part structured-data questions, use ask_pipeworx for single lookups, for breaking/current topics, or when not signed in. It also explains depth-tier choices and paid requirements, leaving no ambiguity about selection.

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

All Imei 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 have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now, and deep_research, validate_claim, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all overlap with the ask_pipeworx family. The prediction-market cluster also has six tools whose distinctions require careful reading, making mis-selection likely.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names are lowercase snake_case and reasonably descriptive, but no consistent verb_noun pattern holds across the set. entity_profile, recent_alerts, and pipeworx_trending are noun phrases, while compare_entities, resolve_entity, and validate_imei are verbs, and the useful ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_* prefixes are not applied server-wide.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is too many for an agent to navigate efficiently, especially since the underlying data surface is already hidden behind ask_pipeworx and dozens more tools. The set spans data research, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, IMEI validation, dependency scanning, and llms.txt generation, making it feel like a grab bag rather than a focused server.

Completeness3/5

The main query/verify/research/monitor workflow is covered well: ask, grounded, deep research, claim validation, entity profiles, comparisons, subscriptions, and memory all exist, so common paths have few dead ends. However, the set is not a single coherent domain, and there is no direct fetch/read-record tool or prediction-market execution tool, leaving some reasonable follow-up actions implicit.

Resources