Skip to main content
Glama

Opensky

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 1498 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 5,735 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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, the description discloses account requirements, paid tier, 15-90s latency, never-invented gaps[], resolvable citation_uri, hop field, contradictions[] on deeper depths, and semantic excerpting rather than head-truncation. These are substantive behavioral traits not visible in the annotations or schema.

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 almost every sentence carries a distinct fact, beginning with the account requirement, then core behavior, alternatives, depth modes, output guarantees, and latency. It could be tightened into structured bullets, but the density is justified by the tool's complexity.

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 thoroughly explains the return value: findings packet fields, gaps[], contradictions[], hop, citation_uri, and fetchability. Combined with annotations and detailed schema for the two parameters, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly and interpret results.

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

Parameters5/5

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

Schema coverage is 100%, but the description adds meaningful depth semantics: what each depth level does, which ones recover gaps or chase leads, and which requires payment. For the question parameter it gives concrete multi-part examples and reinforces that broad decomposition is intended.

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 names a specific action — grounded multi-source research across 1,498 structured data sources — and makes the boundary explicit ('this is NOT open-web search'). It distinguishes the tool from ask_pipeworx by scope and from generic research tools by its structured catalog and parallel decomposition.

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?

It gives explicit when-to-use guidance: best for broad/multi-part structured-data questions, and points to ask_pipeworx for single lookups, breaking/current-news topics, and unsigned-in users. The pricing/auth precondition for depth:'thorough' is also stated up front.

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

All Opensky 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

Several tools have heavily overlapping entry points: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all take natural-language factual questions, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now. There is also overlap among get_states, get_aircraft, and airspace_activity, plus a large cluster of prediction-market tools with similar discovery purposes.

Naming Consistency4/5

The set is mostly snake_case and readable, with familiar patterns like get_*, list_*, resolve_*, and compare_*. It is not chaotic, but there are notable deviations: noun-phrase names like entity_profile, recent_changes, ai_visibility_check, and airspace_activity break the verb-first pattern.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is too many for a single coherent server, especially because they comprise several independent families: aviation, data/research, prediction markets, memory, and subscriptions. Each tool is individually justified, but the bundle should be split into smaller focused MCP servers.

Completeness3/5

The data-research side is fairly complete, with discover, routing, grounded verification, entity resolution, search-within, compare, and follow-up tools, and the subscription and memory lifecycles are covered. However, the OpenSky side is incomplete: get_flights explicitly cannot return its data, and referenced route/arrival/departure tools are missing from the set.

Resources