Skip to main content
Glama

Malwarebazaar

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?

The description adds substantial behavior beyond annotations: account/paid-plan requirements, parallel facet decomposition, no invented findings, gaps[] for unanswered facets, contradictions[], semantic excerpting, citation fetchability guarantees, and latency expectations. This richly supplements the readOnlyHint/openWorldHint/idempotentHint annotations without contradicting them.

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 the complexity of the tool justifies the length. It is front-loaded with the most critical operational constraint (account required) and the key alternative. A few sentences are dense, but nearly every clause carries decision-relevant information.

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?

For a complex tool with no output schema, the description covers the return packet fields, failure behavior via gaps[], contradiction output, citation resolvability, latency, account tiers, and when results will be empty. An agent has enough context to select the tool and set expectations without needing additional documentation.

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, but the description adds real meaning to the depth parameter by explaining what quick/standard/thorough actually do in terms of hop behavior, gap recovery, and contradiction detection. It also clarifies that the question can be broad and multi-part, reinforcing the schema.

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 precise verb and resource: 'research across Pipeworx's 1500 STRUCTURED data sources' in one call, and explicitly contrasts itself with open-web search. It clearly distinguishes from siblings by naming ask_pipeworx as the alternative for single lookups and current-news topics.

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 structured-data questions, and explicitly says to use ask_pipeworx for single lookups, breaking news, and unsupported topics. It also covers the account prerequisite and tells unsigned-in users to use ask_pipeworx instead.

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

All Malwarebazaar 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are near-duplicates: ask_pipeworx_beta is described as currently identical to ask_pipeworx, and ask_pipeworx_grounded is the same router with extra verification. Malware sample searches also overlap across search_family, search_tag, search_signature, and recent_samples, while ai_visibility_check is wrapped by scan_competitor_ai_presence.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set mostly uses snake_case and verb-first names like get_sample_info and validate_claim, which is helpful. However, conventions are mixed across ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, search_*, and noun-style names like recent_samples and entity_profile, so there is no single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is already over the comfortable range, but the bigger issue is that the server is named Malwarebazaar while only about five tools actually deal with malware. The remaining tools belong to an unrelated data-research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription platform, making the count inappropriate for the server's apparent purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the MalwareBazaar domain, the set covers metadata lookups and filtered sample searches but lacks sample submission, retrieval, or deeper analysis workflow. The rest of the tool surface targets unrelated domains, so there is no coherent, complete lifecycle for either malware intelligence or the broader feature set.

Resources