Skip to main content
Glama

Libretranslate

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 1506 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 5,767 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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / depth / description
      Previous value: -"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3 (single hop), standard=5 (default; adds a gap-recovery hop that re-angles unanswered facets + a contradictions[] scan across findings), thorough=8 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus the contradictions[] scan)."New value: +"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)."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / depth / description
      Previous value: -"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3 (single hop), standard=5 (default; adds a gap-recovery hop that re-angles unanswered facets), thorough=8 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus a contradictions[] scan across findings)."New value: +"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3 (single hop), standard=5 (default; adds a gap-recovery hop that re-angles unanswered facets + a contradictions[] scan across findings), thorough=8 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus the contradictions[] scan)."
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / depth / description
      Previous value: -"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3, standard=5 (default), thorough=8 (paid plans). \"thorough\" also runs a second ITERATIVE hop — a planner inspects the first-pass findings/gaps and chases the most valuable leads or recovers gaps, resolving multi-step questions in one call."New value: +"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3 (single hop), standard=5 (default; adds a gap-recovery hop that re-angles unanswered facets), thorough=8 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus a contradictions[] scan across findings)."
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / depth / description
      Previous value: -"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3, standard=5 (default), thorough=8 (paid plans)."New value: +"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3, standard=5 (default), thorough=8 (paid plans). \"thorough\" also runs a second ITERATIVE hop — a planner inspects the first-pass findings/gaps and chases the most valuable leads or recovers gaps, resolving multi-step questions in one call."
  5. Added

TDQS

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond readOnly/openWorld/idempotent annotations, the description discloses the parallel decomposition behavior (5,767 tools in parallel), return packet shape (verbatim evidence + confidence + source + fetched_at + citations + gaps[]), the gap behavior ('never invented'), hop behavior per depth, contradiction[] scanning, semantic excerpting of large records, citation resolvability guarantees, and latency expectations (15–60s, thorough ~90s). It also exposes the paid-plan gate for thorough. This is rich behavioral disclosure that materially helps an agent set expectations and handle results.

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 nearly every sentence earns its place by disclosing non-obvious behavior (account requirement, non-open-web, parallel decomposition, gaps[], hop semantics, latency, excerpting). It front-loads the critical account/signup gate and the alternative tool. It is dense rather than padded; only minor trimming could improve scannability, but the density is justified for a complex tool.

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 a complex 2-param tool with no output schema, the description fully compensates: it explains the return packet (findings with evidence/confidence/source/fetched_at/citations), gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, semantic excerpting, latency, and auth/plan constraints. There is no output schema, so this behavioral return-format detail is essential and present. The description is complete for selecting and invoking the tool correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100% and both parameters are already well documented in the schema. The description adds crucial real-world semantics: the depth enum gets operational meaning (quick=3 facets/hop, standard=3 with gap-recovery plus contradictions, thorough=6 paid with iterative hop), and the question parameter's meaning is expanded ('Broad/multi-part is fine — decomposition is the point'). The description also gives concrete example questions. This exceeds the baseline significantly.

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 names a specific verb+resource (deep multi-source research over Pipeworx's structured data sources) and sharply distinguishes it from open-web search and from the sibling ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded tools. It clearly identifies the tool's target use case (broad/multi-part questions over structured data) and its non-use case (single lookup, breaking/current news), so an agent can select it among 30+ siblings.

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'), explicit when-not-to-use guidance ('For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead'), and explicit exclusion ('this is NOT open-web search'). It also names the fallback alternative when not signed in ('use ask_pipeworx instead') and routes current-news topics to ask_pipeworx. This is exemplary routing guidance.

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

All Libretranslate 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route questions to the same underlying Pipeworx catalog, and the five polymarket_* tools all analyze prediction-market opportunities and edge. While the individual descriptions are detailed, an agent could easily select the wrong tool without deep reading, particularly between ask_pipeworx and its beta/variant versions.

Naming Consistency2/5

The naming style is a mixture of imperative verb phrases (translate, validate_claim, forget, generate_llms_txt), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts, polymarket_arbitrage), and brand-prefixed nouns (ask_pipeworx, pipeworx_trending, bet_research). While all names are lowercase with underscores, there is no consistent verb_noun or domain-prefix convention across the toolset, making the API feel grab-bag rather than designed.

Tool Count1/5

The server is named 'Libretranslate' — a translation service that needs only translate, detect_language, and list_languages — yet it exposes 34 tools spanning data research, prediction markets, memory storage, subscriptions, dependency scanning, AI-visibility probing, and llms.txt generation. This is an extreme scope mismatch: the overwhelming majority of tools serve completely unrelated functions that have nothing to do with the server's apparent purpose.

Completeness2/5

If judged purely as a translation server, the core surface is present but thin: translate, detect_language, and list_languages cover basic use, though there are no batch, format, or language-details options. If judged as the broader heterogeneous toolset, the domain is incoherent — no single workstream is fully covered, and the unrelated tools (Polymarket betting, Pipeworx research, memory, subscriptions) create a muddled surface with obvious gaps in any single stated purpose.

Resources