Skip to main content
Glama

launches

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 1499 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 5,738 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?

Discloses far beyond the annotations: account requirement, paid tier for 'thorough', facet decomposition, parallel routing across 5,724 tools, return packet fields, gaps[] never invented, contradictions[], excerpting not truncation, and time expectations. Nothing contradicts the readOnly/openWorld/idempotent hints.

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 comprehensive but verbose, with some redundancy against the schema's depth explanation (e.g., gap-recovery and contradictions are described in both places). It is front-loaded with prerequisites and alternatives, so structure is good, but length could be tightened.

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 there is no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining the return value and does so thoroughly: findings packet fields, pipeworx:// citations, gaps[], contradictions[], and hop field. It also covers prerequisites, alternatives, and time expectations — complete for an agent to select and call 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?

The schema already covers both parameters at 100%, but the description adds operational context: what each depth level does in terms of hops and contradiction scans, the paid plan requirement for 'thorough', and timing implications. It reinforces but doesn't contradict the schema definitions.

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: performs grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1497 structured data sources in one call. Explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx, and clarifies its best-use case for broad/multi-part questions.

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 guidance: best for broad/multi-part structured-data questions, while single lookups and breaking current-news topics should go to ask_pipeworx. Also notes the signed-in prerequisite and redirects unsigned-in users to ask_pipeworx, naming the alternative and the condition that selects it.

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

All launches 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

Several tools have significantly overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all perform data retrieval, with beta currently identical to stable. The polymarket_* family and bet_research also blur boundaries, and discover_tools vs suggest_questions both handle discovery. Despite detailed descriptions, agents are likely to misselect among these overlapping options.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tools use snake_case, but conventions are mixed: some start with verbs (get_launch, search_launches, ask_pipeworx), others are noun phrases (entity_profile, pipeworx_trending), and there are versioned suffixes (ask_pipeworx_beta). While each domain group has internal consistency, the overall set lacks a unified pattern.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a server named 'launches'—only 4 tools (get_launch, get_past_launches, get_upcoming_launches, search_launches) actually relate to space launches. The remaining 31 tools cover unrelated domains like prediction markets, company profiles, and memory, making the count inappropriate and diluting the server's focus.

Completeness2/5

For the claimed launch domain, the set provides only basic list/detail/search operations and lacks useful launch features like filtering by agency, date range, or launch site. More critically, the inclusion of 31 unrelated tools creates a fragmented surface with obvious dead ends—an agent expecting a launch-focused server would find most tools irrelevant.

Resources