Skip to main content
Glama

Ocrspace

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: auth requirements, latency expectations, gap[] behavior, contradictions[], hop fields, citation fetchability guarantees, and semantic excerpting. It also clarifies that citations are only emitted when resolvable by resources/read, which is valuable operational context. No contradiction with the read-only, idempotent annotations.

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 each section earns its place: auth gate, alternative routing, core behavior, depth semantics, output packet contents, and latency. It is front-loaded with the most decision-critical information. It could be slightly tighter given the schema already documents depth details, but there is no filler.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description explains the return format in detail: verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation URI, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, and excerpting behavior. Combined with annotations and a small input schema, nothing essential for correct invocation or expectation-setting is missing.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, including detailed per-depth behavior, so the schema already carries most parameter semantics. The description adds a couple of useful nuances (e.g., multi-step questions resolve in one call, quick is single-hop) but largely restates what the schema documents. Baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 1500 STRUCTURED data sources ... in ONE call.' It explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from single-lookup siblings, so an agent can understand what differentiates this tool without opening schemas.

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: use for broad/multi-part questions over structured data, prefer ask_pipeworx for single lookups or if not signed in, and note that depth 'thorough' requires a paid plan. The description names alternatives and the conditions that select them.

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

All Ocrspace 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools serve overlapping purposes (multiple ask_pipeworx variants, several entity tools, multiple Polymarket edge tools), and while descriptions are detailed, an agent would struggle to quickly select the correct tool without careful reading.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are mixed: some use verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, extract_text), others use noun_phrase (ai_visibility_check, bet_research, entity_profile), and no clear pattern dominates.

Tool Count3/5

32 tools is above the typical well-scoped range (3-15). While the broad domain of data query, prediction markets, memory, and subscriptions somewhat justifies the count, it still feels heavy and could benefit from consolidation.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers most operations for its domain: data query (with multiple depth levels), memory CRUD, subscription lifecycle, and utilities like OCR and dependency scanning. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct modify operation), but overall it's fairly complete.

Resources