Skip to main content
Glama

Opencitations

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?

Even with strong annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint), the description adds rich context: account/paid-plan requirement, decomposition into facets routed to 5,724 tools in parallel, explicit gaps[] that never invent answers, depth-dependent follow-up hops, contradictions[], citation_uri fetchability, excerpting behavior, and latency ranges. No statement contradicts 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 front-loaded with the critical account gate and packed with non-redundant operational details. Some depth behavior is restated from the schema enum descriptions, but the extra examples and timing expectations earn their place for such a complex tool.

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 fully covers input expectations, depth semantics, output findings packet (evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation, gaps[], contradictions[]), errors/empty behavior, performance expectations, and alternatives. An agent has what it needs to select and invoke the tool correctly.

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 schema already documents both parameters and the depth enum. The description still adds value by explaining what each depth does behaviorally (standard re-angles unanswered gaps, thorough chases leads, contradictions scan) and by confirming question is natural-language and broad/multi-part is the point.

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?

Description names a precise action and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1497 STRUCTURED data sources' in ONE call, and explicitly frames what it is not ('this is NOT open-web search'). It also distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx for single lookups and breaking-news use, so an agent can tell them apart.

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 routing rules with alternatives: use ask_pipeworx when unsigned in, for single lookups, and for breaking/colloquial current-news topics; use deep_research for broad/multi-part structured-data questions. It states both when-to-use and when-not-to-use, including examples.

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

All Opencitations 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

Multiple tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical router variants, and entity_profile/compare_entities/recent_changes/ai_visibility_check all inspect companies from overlapping angles. The six Polymarket tools form a tightly-overlapping mini-domain that further crowds the surface.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case, but verbs are inconsistently used: many tools are noun phrases (citation_count, entity_profile, polymarket_edges) while others start with verbs (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, validate_claim). Some prefixes like ask_* and polymarket_* help, but the overall verb/noun pattern is not coherent.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is well above the typical 3–15 tool scope, and several are redundant variants (three ask_pipeworx modes) or hyper-specific sub-tools (six Polymarket tools). The server name suggests a focused citation service, but only six tools actually address citations, leaving the set bloated with unrelated data query and memory utilities.

Completeness3/5

For a general data-query gateway, the surface is quite broad and covers lookup, profiling, comparisons, subscriptions, and memory. But as an OpenCitations server it lacks a way to discover papers by topic and the breadth of the other domains is unwieldy and unowned—so notable gaps exist in any plausible stated purpose.

Resources