Skip to main content
Glama

Kitsu

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 1498 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 5,728 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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, the description discloses account requirements, paid-tier requirement for depth:'thorough', latency expectations, gap[]/contradictions[] behavior, citation_uri fetchability, semantic excerpting, and the guarantee that it never invents answers. The 'NOT open-web search' line refers to source type, not to whether the tool accesses external data, so there is no annotation contradiction.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness3/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is information-dense and nearly every sentence contributes, but it is a long wall-of-text paragraph rather than a front-loaded, structured definition. Auth/pricing details appear before the core purpose, and some depth details repeat the schema.

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 thoroughly covers output format (evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citations), limitations (gaps[]), contradictions, alternatives, auth, and timing. An agent has enough information to decide when and how to invoke the tool correctly.

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 practical parameter semantics by explaining depth values ('quick=3... standard=3... thorough=6'), second-hop gap recovery, and confirming that broad/multi-part questions are appropriate for the question parameter.

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 1497 STRUCTURED data sources' that 'Decomposes your question into focused facets' and returns a findings packet. It also explicitly contrasts itself with ask_pipeworx, making sibling differentiation clear.

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?

Usage guidance is explicit: 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data', 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx', and 'For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS... prefer ask_pipeworx'. It even handles the sign-in prerequisite by routing unsigned-in agents to ask_pipeworx.

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

All Kitsu 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer research questions, and the Kitsu-specific tools are mixed with unrelated Polymarket, memory, and utility tools. Despite detailed descriptions, the boundaries between many tools are unclear.

Naming Consistency2/5

The server mixes single-word nouns (anime, manga, categories), verb_noun pairs (search_anime, top_anime), verb phrases (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt), and domain-prefixed families (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*) with no consistent overall convention. While some sub-families are internally consistent, the set as a whole lacks a predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is excessive for a server ostensibly about Kitsu anime/manga, with only 7 tools actually serving that domain. The rest are unrelated (Pipeworx research, Polymarket trading, memory, subscriptions), making the set bloated and unfocused for its stated purpose.

Completeness2/5

The Kitsu domain lacks common operations like filtered search, character/episode data, or user lists. Meanwhile, the Pipeworx/prediction-market tools form an arbitrary subset of their domains (e.g., no general Kalshi data, no SEC full-text search), so the overall surface is incomplete for any single purpose.

Resources