Skip to main content
Glama

Last Fm

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?

Annotations already mark it read-only, idempotent, non-destructive, and open-world. The description goes well beyond these by disclosing parallel tool routing, the findings packet structure, explicit gaps[], contradictions[], hop fields, citation_uri resolution guarantees, semantic excerpting behavior, account requirements, and expected latency. There is no contradiction with 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 dense and mostly well-organized, front-loading the account requirement and core distinction from ask_pipeworx before diving into mechanics. A few details are reiterated in the schema, but every sentence serves a practical decision or invocation need.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, the absence of an output schema, and the wide sibling set, the description is remarkably complete. It covers authentication, cost, alternatives, return shape, timing, limitations, citation resolvability, and depth-specific behavior, so an agent has what it needs to invoke and interpret results 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 genuine value beyond the schema by clarifying that question is natural-language and intentionally broad/multi-part, and by tying depth tiers to cost and recovery behavior, including the paid requirement for 'thorough'.

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: deep research over Pipeworx's 1500 structured data sources, with decomposition into facets and a findings packet. It explicitly distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx and clarifies it is not open-web search, so an agent can tell it apart from its sibling tools.

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: best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data, and names alternatives for single lookups and breaking/colloquial current-news topics. It even states behavioral consequences, such as mostly empty gaps[] in cases where the topic isn't in the structured catalog.

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

All Last Fm 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, especially the ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and the Polymarket cluster (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread). Additionally, discover_tools and suggest_questions both serve as discovery/onboarding tools, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence are closely related. While descriptions are detailed, the boundaries between these tools are unclear, causing potential misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tool names use lowercase snake_case with no camelCase or mixed styles. The naming follows a mostly consistent verb_noun or data_subject pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, list_subscriptions, validate_claim, artist_info, recent_alerts). Minor deviations exist, such as recent_alerts and user_top_tracks not beginning with a verb, but the overall pattern is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

40 tools is far too many for a server nominally about Last.fm; only 9 tools actually relate to its stated purpose. The remaining 31 tools cover unrelated domains (Pipeworx data routing, Polymarket betting, memory, subscriptions, etc.), making the set bloated and unfocused. Many tools are near-duplicates (ask_pipeworx, _beta, _grounded; four different polymarket_* analysis tools), inflating the count without adding distinct value.

Completeness2/5

Even within the Last.fm domain, the tool surface is incomplete: there is no artist search, album search, user profile info, recent scrobbles, loved tracks, or music recommendations. The unrelated Pipeworx/Polymarket tools, while individually comprehensive for their own domains, do not compensate for the lack of core Last.fm functionality given the server's stated purpose. The overall set is a fragmented mixture that leaves significant gaps for what the server name promises.

Resources