Skip to main content
Glama

N2yo

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, non-destructive) already cover the safety profile, and the description adds substantial context beyond them: account gating with a paid tier for 'thorough', 15-60s/~90s latency expectations, the full findings-packet contract (verbatim evidence + confidence + source + fetched_at + stable pipeworx:// citation), explicit gaps[] for unanswered facets, contradictions[] for disagreeing findings, and semantic excerpting rather than head-truncation. The 'NOT open-web search' constraint sharpens rather than contradicts openWorldHint=true, since the tool accesses live structured sources.

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?

Every sentence carries information, but it is delivered as one dense wall of text that jumps between account gating, output format, routing guidance, depth mechanics, and latency, with some repetition of citation behavior (introduced as 'stable pipeworx:// citation' and later re-explained as citation_uri). Front-loading is strong (account requirement first), but the lack of structure and slight redundancy keep it from being cleanly scannable.

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 a rich result packet and no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining return values and does so completely: per-finding fields, gaps[], contradictions[], hop semantics, citation_uri fetchability guarantees, and semantic excerpting. It also covers prerequisites (account tier), timing, alternatives, and the failure mode for out-of-catalog topics, so nothing an agent needs to invoke and interpret the call is missing.

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, and the depth enum is already richly documented in the schema. The description adds value beyond the schema by tying depth to latency expectations ('thorough... up to ~90s'), showing how broad/multi-part questions should be phrased, and clarifying what output fields (hop, contradictions[], gaps[]) an agent can expect. It avoids duplicating the enum mechanics that the schema already explains.

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 precise verb+resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1506 STRUCTURED data sources... in ONE call.' It clearly differentiates from siblings by declaring 'this is NOT open-web search' and by contrasting with ask_pipeworx ('For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead'). An agent can immediately tell this is the broad multi-facet research tool versus the single-query alternatives.

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?

Gives explicit when-to-use guidance ('Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data') with concrete examples, plus explicit exclusions: not-signed-in users and single lookups are routed to ask_pipeworx, and breaking/current-news topics are routed to ask_pipeworx because deep_research returns 'mostly empty gaps[]' for topics outside the structured catalog. This is exemplary routing behavior with named alternatives.

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

All N2yo 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-duplicates (beta is currently identical), and the five Polymarket tools (arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) require careful reading to distinguish. Additionally, entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes all handle company data, and ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence are clearly paired. The detailed descriptions help, but an agent will frequently misselect among these clusters.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase with underscores, so the style is internally consistent. However, the pattern is mixed: many use verb_noun (get_positions, list_subscriptions, resolve_entity) but several are noun-first or noun-only (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending, bet_research). There's no strong verb/noun convention across the set, making the naming pattern less predictable than it could be.

Tool Count2/5

With 34 tools, the set exceeds the 16–25 'heavy' range and sits in the 'too many' band. The server name suggests a focused satellite-tracking service, yet only 3 tools (get_positions, get_visual_passes, whats_above) serve that purpose; the other 31 cover unrelated domains like data research, prediction markets, memory, and subscriptions. Even as a general-purpose research platform, the count feels bloated and unfocused.

Completeness3/5

The tool surface is broad, covering satellite tracking, data research, prediction markets, subscriptions, and memory, and within each cluster the main operations exist (e.g., subscription lifecycle, edge analysis + fill risk). However, the scattered scope creates gaps: there's no direct raw-data fetch tool (everything goes through ask_pipeworx), no general web search, and the presence of unrelated utilities (generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency) suggests the domain boundaries are unclear. For its stated satellite purpose, the satellite tools are thin (no TLE, no catalog, no detailed orbit info).

Resources