Skip to main content
Glama

Mailchimp

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 1517 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 5,798 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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=false, destructiveHint=false, and openWorldHint=true. The description enriches this with substantial behavioral detail: auth requirements, latency expectations (15-60s, up to ~90s for thorough), the findings packet format (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation_uri), explicit gaps[] behavior, the 'never invented' guarantee, contradictions[] scanning, and semantic excerpting of large records. There is no contradiction with the annotations. The description carries far more behavioral transparency than the annotations alone.

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 unusually long, but the tool is genuinely complex and the length is justified. It is front-loaded with the most critical routing information (account requirement and the ask_pipeworx alternative) before diving into mechanics. However, the second half is a dense run-on paragraph with nested parentheses and some redundancy with the schema's depth descriptions, which makes it harder to parse than necessary. It could be tightened with bullet points or shorter sentences, but every sentence does add informational value.

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 fully compensates by explaining the return packet shape, citation behavior, gaps array, contradiction scanning, and latency. It covers authentication prerequisites, the offline alternative, the tool's non-open-web scope, and the depth-mode differences. For a tool with this complexity, an agent calling it correctly has everything it needs: when to use, what to pass, what to expect back, and what constraints apply.

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%: both question and depth have descriptions, and depth has an enum with per-option semantics. The description adds meaningful context beyond the schema by explaining what the depth levels do operationally in terms of hops, gap recovery, contradiction scanning, and the paid requirement for 'thorough'. It also explains how the question parameter is interpreted (decomposed into facets), which the schema only implies. While the schema handles basic parameter definitions, the description enriches the semantics enough to score above baseline.

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 opens with a precise statement of what the tool does: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1517 STRUCTURED data sources' in one call, with a clear list of source types. It explicitly differentiates itself from open-web search and from sibling ask_pipeworx by addressing a different use case. The verb 'research' plus the concrete resource (structured data sources) and the decomposition/parallel routing behavior leave no ambiguity about the tool's purpose.

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 and actionable: it says to use ask_pipeworx if not signed in, and to use ask_pipeworx for a single lookup, while this tool is best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data. It provides example questions and even names the required account tier and cost condition for the 'thorough' depth. The conditions for choosing this tool versus alternatives are fully stated.

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

All Mailchimp 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are near-duplicates: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, and discover_tools overlaps heavily with suggest_questions. The six Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, etc.) have fuzzy boundaries that will mislead an agent choosing among them.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names are snake_case, but patterns vary: verb_noun (list_subscriptions, validate_claim), adjective_noun (recent_alerts, recent_changes), bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), and domain-prefixed tools (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_*, mailchimp_*). No camelCase mixing, but the inconsistency across styles makes prediction of names harder.

Tool Count1/5

The server is named Mailchimp but only 5 of 36 tools are Mailchimp-related; the remaining 31 tools cover unrelated domains (Pipeworx data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions). This extreme mismatch means the count is wildly inappropriate for the apparent purpose.

Completeness1/5

For a Mailchimp server, the surface is severely incomplete: only read operations exist (list/get audiences, campaigns, members) with no create, update, delete, send, or automation tools. The Pipeworx tools are comparatively rich but their presence does not fix the fact that the Mailchimp domain itself is a dead end.

Resources