Skip to main content
Glama

Opentargets

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 already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint. The description adds extensive behavioral detail beyond those: parallel routing, findings packet contents (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at), gaps[] for unanswered facets, the never-invented guarantee, contradictions[], semantic excerpting, the hop field, citation_uri resolvability, and latency expectations. No contradiction with 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 dense; nearly every clause carries distinct behavioral or usage information. It is front-loaded with the account requirement and quickly moves to core behavior, then alternatives, then edge-case details. It reads as a single heavy block, but the length is warranted 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?

Despite having no output schema, the description fully explains the return packet and its special fields (gaps, contradictions, hop, citation_uri), along with runtime expectations and the distinction between structured research and live-news routes. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool and interpret its results 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. The description adds useful context by clarifying depth semantics in operational terms (gap recovery, chasing leads, contradictions pass) and by confirming that the question parameter is natural language and that broad/multi-part questions are expected. This supplements rather than merely repeats the schema.

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: it performs grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1497 structured data sources, decomposing the question into facets and returning a findings packet. It explicitly distinguishes itself from both open-web search and the sibling ask_pipeworx, making its purpose unambiguous.

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 questions over structured data'), when-not-to-use guidance (single lookup, breaking/current news), and names the alternative tool (ask_pipeworx) in each case. It also covers account-tier prerequisites and provides a fallback tool for unsigned users.

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

All Opentargets 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 clusters of tools overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer data questions; entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes all pull company data; polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and bet_research all analyze prediction markets. Though descriptions are detailed, the boundaries are subtle and the beta variant is nearly identical to the stable one.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names are snake_case, but there's no consistent verb_noun pattern: some are bare nouns (disease, target, drug, search), some are verb phrases (resolve_entity, validate_claim, generate_llms_txt), and some are domain-prefixed (ask_pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, target_*). The mixed conventions make it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is far beyond the typical well-scoped server, and the set mixes Open Targets lookup, a general data platform (Pipeworx), prediction markets, npm package checks, and AI-marketing utilities under the name 'Opentargets'. Many tools are unrelated to the server's apparent core purpose.

Completeness4/5

The Open Targets drug-discovery workflow is well covered: search for IDs, get disease/drug/target profiles, and get associations/known drugs. However, the broader platform lacks some lifecycle operations (no create/update/delete since it's read-only), and the unrelated utilities (generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency) appear tacked on rather than filling domain gaps.

Resources