Skip to main content
Glama

Jira

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even with readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false already in annotations, the description adds substantial behavioral context: account/plan requirements, parallel facet decomposition, findings packet format with verbatim evidence and citations, gaps[] behavior, contradictions[], excerpting semantics, hop fields, and expected latency. It fully discloses how the tool behaves beyond what annotations state.

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 sentence earns its place: prerequisites first, then core function, then sibling differentiation, then depth semantics, then return behavior, then timing. The structure is dense but logically ordered and front-loaded with the account gate that determines whether the tool can be used at all.

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 complex tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential operational knowledge: when it is appropriate, what it returns, how citations work, what gaps[] means, what depth levels do, and how long calls take. An agent has enough information to select, invoke, and interpret results correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

While the schema already covers 100% of parameters, the description enriches both meanings substantially: it explains what 'question' should look like (broad/multi-part is fine) and details each depth value's behavior beyond the schema enum text (quick=3 facets, standard gap recovery, thorough lead-chasing and contradiction scanning). This goes well beyond the baseline for high schema coverage.

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 states the verb and resource: grounded multi-source research over Pipeworx's 1500 structured data sources, decomposing questions and routing to 5,743 tools. It explicitly differentiates itself from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx, which prevents confusion with the primary sibling. This is specific and actionable.

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 for broad/multi-part structured-data questions and explicit when-not-to-use guidance for single lookups and breaking/current-news topics. It names the alternative tools (ask_pipeworx) and even covers the auth-tier case (use ask_pipeworx if not signed in). Nothing is left to inference.

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

All Jira 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Tool purposes are largely distinct across domains (Jira, data queries, prediction markets), but there is overlap within domains, e.g., ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_grounded and multiple Polymarket edge analysis tools.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes multiple conventions: jira_ prefix, pipeworx_ prefix, polymarket_ prefix, and plain verbs (remember, forget, recall). No consistent pattern across the entire set.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is excessive for a server named 'Jira' which only has 4 Jira-specific tools. The majority are unrelated Pipeworx and Polymarket tools, making the scope bloated.

Completeness2/5

Jira-specific tools are incomplete (missing create, update, delete). While Pipeworx and Polymarket tools are comprehensive, they are out of place for a Jira server, leaving gaps in its stated purpose.

Resources