Skip to main content
Glama

Kolada Se

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Descriptions adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: account/paid-tier requirements, parallel decomposition across 5,743 tools, gaps[] behavior (never invented), contradictions[], semantic excerpting, citation_uri resolvability, and latency expectations. This is far more than the read-only/idempotent hints convey and helps set accurate agent expectations.

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 richly informative, front-loaded with the critical auth constraint and the primary sibling distinction. Some repetition occurs (gap recovery and contradictions are mentioned multiple times), but the density is justified for a complex tool with many caveats.

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?

Covers return packet structure, timing, auth, alternatives, depth semantics, citation behavior, and failure modes. With no output schema, the description fully carries the responsibility for explaining what the agent will get back, and it does so completely.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds value by clarifying the question parameter is fine with broad/multi-part queries, by giving default depth ('standard'), and by spelling out the paid plan implication for 'thorough' — beyond the schema's enum descriptions.

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+resource ('grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1500 STRUCTURED data sources') and explicitly differentiates from ask_pipeworx, so an agent can distinguish them. Includes concrete examples of target use cases and what the tool is not (open-web search).

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: best for broad/multi-part structured questions, single lookup or breaking news should go to ask_pipeworx, and signed-out users should use ask_pipeworx. Also gives depth-selection guidance (standard default, thorough paid, quick single-hop).

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

All Kolada Se 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical when no routing candidate is active), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer factual questions through the same underlying router. The prediction-market cluster (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, bet_research, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) has substantial purpose overlap that requires reading long descriptions to disambiguate.

Naming Consistency3/5

Mostly snake_case, and the pipeworx_/polymarket_/ask_ prefixes give some structure, but conventions are mixed: some tools are verb_noun (list_municipalities, get_data), some are bare verbs (forget, recall, remember), and some are noun phrases (entity_profile, deep_research, bet_research, recent_changes). The inconsistent prefixing across meta-tools (ask_, deep_, entity_, scan_, validate_) makes the surface feel less predictable than it could be.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is on the heavy side, but the bigger problem is that the server name 'Kolada Se' matches only 4 tools (search_kpi, list_municipalities, list_org_units, get_data), while the other 31 tools belong to unrelated domains (Pipeworx data routing, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility). This is a severe scope mismatch that makes the count feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

For the Kolada domain named by the server, the surface is minimal: you can search KPIs, list municipalities, list org units, and fetch single-KPI data, but there is no multi-year bulk fetch, cross-municipality comparison, or unit-level data retrieval. The broader Pipeworx/prediction-market surface is fairly feature-complete, but it is not what the server name implies, so the set as a whole leaves the apparent domain thinly covered.

Resources