Keepa

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 1877 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 7,242 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).

Example tool call

This call uses example arguments supplied in the tool’s input schema.

{
  "id": 1,
  "jsonrpc": "2.0",
  "method": "tools/call",
  "params": {
    "arguments": {
      "depth": "quick",
      "question": "What is the current US unemployment rate and how has it changed over the past year?"
    },
    "name": "deep_research"
  }
}

Input Schema

Name	Required	Description
`q`	No	Alias for question.
`ask`	No	Alias for question.
`text`	No	Alias for question.
`depth`	No	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).
`input`	No	Alias for question.
`query`	No	Alias for question.
`prompt`	No	Alias for question.
`message`	No	Alias for question.
`question`	Yes	The research question, in natural language. Broad/multi-part is fine — decomposition is the point. Accepts query, q, prompt, text, input, ask, message as aliases.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections.

First observedSep 26, 2026

TDQS

A4.8/5.0

Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already cover the safety profile (readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive), and the description adds substantial context beyond them: auth and tier gating, the parallel fan-out over 7,242 tools, guaranteed fetchable pipeworx:// citations, semantic (not head-truncated) excerpting, gaps[] that are never invented, and latency expectations of 15-60s rising to ~90s for 'thorough'.

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?

Front-loaded with the blocking constraint (account required) and the core purpose, and nearly every sentence carries operational information. It is overstuffed, though: the ask_pipeworx fallback is restated three separate times, which inflates the definition without adding new decision value.

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 long-running, gated, multi-hop research tool with no output schema, the description covers everything an agent needs: prerequisites, alternatives, expected latency, the shape of the returned findings packet (evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation, gaps, contradictions, hop), and the known failure mode (empty gaps on non-catalog topics).

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 still earns credit by adding tier/pricing semantics ('thorough' requires a paid plan) and by explaining what each depth level does behaviorally (gap recovery, lead chasing, contradiction scan). It does not add anything about the seven question aliases, which remain schema-only.

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?

States a specific verb and resource ('grounded multi-source research across 1877 STRUCTURED data sources') and explicitly negates the wrong reading ('this is NOT open-web search'). It also draws a hard line between itself and the sibling ask_pipeworx (multi-facet vs single lookup), so an agent can choose without opening a 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 use cases with concrete examples ('compare X and Y's regulatory + financial exposure'), names the alternative for single lookups (ask_pipeworx), and adds an explicit when-not-to-use rule for breaking/colloquial news where gaps[] would come back mostly empty. Prerequisites (free account, paid plan for depth:'thorough') are stated up front with a fallback for unauthenticated callers.

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

All Keepa tools Inspect

Try in Browser

One endpoint for every MCP toolRayrun runs every MCP server behind one URL and holds the credentials. Each call is decided per client, tool, and argument, then recorded.ray.runAd

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.