Skip to main content
Glama

Irail

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 1517 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 5,798 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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / depth / description
      Previous value: -"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3 (single hop), standard=5 (default; adds a gap-recovery hop that re-angles unanswered facets + a contradictions[] scan across findings), thorough=8 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus the contradictions[] scan)."New value: +"How 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)."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already carry readOnly/openWorld/idempotent/non-destructive hints, and the description adds rich context beyond them: auth tiers and paid gating for 'thorough', latency expectations (15-60s, up to ~90s), return packet structure (verbatim evidence + confidence + source + fetched_at + citation), honesty guarantees ('never invented'), gap-recovery hop semantics, contradiction scans, and semantically excerpted (not head-truncated) large records. Nothing contradicts 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 densely packed — nearly every clause earns its place given the tool's complexity (5,798 routed sub-tools, three depth modes, contradiction logic, citation semantics). It is front-loaded with the critical auth constraint ('ACCOUNT REQUIRED') ahead of the core purpose. A slight ding for being one unbroken paragraph with the ask_pipeworx fallback surfacing in three separate routing conditions.

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?

With no output schema, the description must explain return values, and it does thoroughly: findings packet structure, gaps[] semantics, contradictions[], citation_uri fetchability, hop field, and large-record excerpting. Combined with annotations covering the safety profile and 100% schema coverage, nothing an agent needs 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.

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 value beyond the schema by tying 'depth' values to behavioral consequences (gap-recovery hop vs. lead-chasing hop, paid requirement for 'thorough') and by clarifying that 'question' accepts broad/multi-part natural language, which the schema does not state explicitly. These additions justify a modest bump above baseline.

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 1517 STRUCTURED data sources... in ONE call' — and explicitly contrasts itself with open-web search ('this is NOT open-web search'). It also names and differentiates the closest sibling (ask_pipeworx) for single lookups, so an agent can pick it correctly without opening the schema.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data') and explicit when-not-to-use with a named alternative: 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx' and 'For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS... prefer ask_pipeworx'. It even covers the auth fallback condition: 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead — it works on every tier'.

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

All Irail 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes with detailed descriptions. However, the three ask_pipeworx variants (standard, beta, grounded) and the five polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) have overlapping functionality that could confuse an agent if descriptions are not carefully parsed. The memory tools (remember, recall, forget) are clear. Overall, the set is mostly disambiguated.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names use snake_case consistently, but naming patterns vary: some follow verb_noun (e.g., ai_visibility_check, compare_entities), others are noun_noun (e.g., bet_research, entity_profile), and a few are single verbs (e.g., recall, remember, forget, subscribe). This mixed pattern reduces predictability, though the names are still readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, the server is overly broad, covering Belgian rail, Pipeworx data queries, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and more. The server name 'Irail' suggests a focused rail toolset, but rail is only a small part. This scope mismatch and high tool count make it feel bloated and less coherent.

Completeness4/5

Within each subdomain, the tool surface is fairly complete. Belgian rail has journey planning, liveboard, train tracking, and disturbances. Data querying has universal, grounded, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, recent changes, and claim validation. Prediction markets have arbitrage, edge detection, edge tracking, fill risk, and cross-venue spread. Memory and subscriptions are covered. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no tool for deleting entities or canceling orders), but overall coverage is strong.

Resources