Skip to main content
Glama

Mlb Stats

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.

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral context: account and paid-tier requirements, parallel facet routing, return packet contents, explicit gaps[] with no invention, hop and citation_uri fetchability, contradictions[], semantic excerpting, and latency expectations. No contradiction with annotations exists.

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 dense but well-organized: account requirement and alternatives are front-loaded, followed by purpose, return format, usage, depth behavior, and timing. It loses one point due to noticeable redundancy ('For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead' appears twice) and its overall length.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully covers what the agent will receive: verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citation, gaps[], contradictions[], hop, and citation_uri. It also covers auth constraints, depth semantics, and latency, leaving little ambiguity for correct invocation.

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% for both parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value beyond the schema by linking depth values to concrete behavior (gap recovery, lead chasing, paid plan, timing), and by clarifying that the question parameter supports broad/multi-part natural language.

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: grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1,506 structured data sources in one call. It clearly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx, making its purpose and scope unambiguous.

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: broad/multi-part questions over structured data, while directing single lookups and breaking-news queries to ask_pipeworx. It also covers the not-signed-in case and advises a follow-up with ask_pipeworx when gaps appear, which is strong routing guidance.

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

All Mlb Stats 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

Severe overlap between entry points: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, and the prediction-market cluster (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk) has fuzzy boundaries that would confuse an agent picking one. Entity lookups (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, validate_claim) also overlap on company data. The stakes are raised by the server being named 'Mlb Stats' while most tools are unrelated general-data tools, compounding misselection risk.

Naming Consistency2/5

There is internal consistency within families — the 7 MLB tools share a clean get_ prefix, and the Poly tools share a polymarket_ prefix — but the overall set mixes bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), prefixed families (ask_pipeworx_*), and descriptive compounds (ai_visibility_check, generate_llms_txt) with no unifying convention. The 'Mlb Stats' server name bears no relation to the dominant ask_pipeworx/deep_research naming, which further breaks pattern expectations.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is well past the heavy threshold, and more importantly the bulk of them (SEC filings, FRED economics, Polymarket arbitrage, npm scanning, AI visibility, subscriptions) have nothing to do with the server's stated MLB purpose. Only 7 of 38 tools are actually baseball-related, so the count is both too high for the labeled scope and misallocated.

Completeness3/5

The 7 MLB tools cover teams, rosters, schedule/scores, standings, player profiles, season stats, and batter-vs-pitcher history — a solid read-only core. However, obvious gaps remain: no per-game box scores, no league leaders, no team offensive/pitching stats, no live game detail beyond final scores. The Pipeworx catch-all router technically fills data gaps but leaves the MLB-specific surface incomplete.

Resources