Skip to main content
Glama

Nist Standards

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?

Annotations only declare readOnly/openWorld/idempotent safety hints. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond them: account/sign-in requirement with URL, paid gating for 'thorough', parallel routing to 5,743 tools, findings-packet return shape (verbatim evidence + confidence + source + fetched_at + pipeworx:// citation), a never-invented gaps[] guarantee, per-depth hop and contradiction scanning behavior, resolvable citation_uri guarantee, semantic excerpting, and 15-90s latency. No contradiction with annotations; the description carries the full behavioral burden and does so thoroughly.

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?

Front-loaded with the most critical constraint (ACCOUNT REQUIRED + signup URL) followed by purpose, and nearly every sentence carries distinct information. However, the back half switches rapidly between depth behaviors, citation_uri guarantees, contradictions, excerpting, and latency without clear organization; depth behavior partially repeats the schema's enum description; and the text contains typos ('thorough'/'thorough' inconsistency, 'flagging', 'excerpted').

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 carries full responsibility for explaining return values and does so completely: findings-packet structure, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, and citation_uri resolvability are all specified. Auth entitlement, latency, failure mode (mostly empty gaps when the topic isn't in the structured catalog), and alternatives are covered. Nothing an agent needs to select or invoke this tool correctly 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. The description adds genuine value on top: depth:'thorough' requires a paid plan (an invocation-relevant constraint absent from the schema), example questions ('compare X and Y's regulatory + financial exposure') that illustrate the intended question shape, and latency expectations tied to depth. Not a 5 because the depth enum semantics largely duplicate what the schema already documents.

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 specific verb and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1500 STRUCTURED data sources... in ONE call.' It explicitly disambiguates from open-web search ('this is NOT open-web search') and from the ask_pipeworx sibling, so an agent can tell what this tool is and is not without opening any schema.

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 ('Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data' with concrete examples) and when-not-to-use: 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx', 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead', and breaking/colloquial news topics should prefer ask_pipeworx because deep_research returns empty gaps. The alternative and the conditions that select it are named repeatedly and precisely.

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

All Nist Standards 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but several clusters overlap: ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx, polymarket_arbitrage and polymarket_edges both surface arbitrage opportunities, and validate_claim overlaps with ask_pipeworx_grounded. Descriptions mitigate some confusion, but selection errors are still likely.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are overwhelmingly lowercase snake_case and descriptive, such as nist_control_family, polymarket_fill_risk, and list_subscriptions. Minor deviations exist with single-word memory verbs like remember/recall/forget and the ask_pipeworx_* variants, but the overall pattern is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well above the comfortable range and includes many tools unrelated to the server's NIST Standards name, such as Polymarket betting, npm dependency scanning, AI visibility checks, and llms.txt generation. The set feels like a broad general-purpose data platform rather than a scoped NIST reference server.

Completeness3/5

For the NIST domain, the three control tools provide id lookup, family listing, and keyword search, but there is no catalog overview or family enumeration, and no comparison, revision, or export capability. The other 31 tools do not fill those gaps, so the NIST surface is functional but not fully complete for compliance workflows.

Resources