Skip to main content
Glama

Osf

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?

Annotations already signal safe, non-destructive, open-world, idempotent behavior; the description then adds rich behavioral detail: account and paid-tier requirements, parallel decomposition, latency expectations, fetchable citation URIs, explicit gaps[] instead of invented answers, contradiction scanning, and semantic excerpting. No annotation contradiction exists.

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, with the most critical operational fact (account required) front-loaded. It packs substantial behavioral and routing detail without filler, though the depth explanation partially repeats schema content and could be tightened.

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, it covers the return packet, citation reliability, gap handling, contradictions, latency, depth variants, auth, and alternatives. An agent has enough context to decide whether to call this tool and what to expect from the result.

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% and the schema already documents both 'question' and the three depth levels with their hop and contradiction behavior. The description reinforces these semantics and adds auth/usage context, but it does not materially add parameter meaning beyond 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 names a specific verb and resource: grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's structured data sources in one call. It explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx, making sibling differentiation immediate.

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 tells the agent exactly when to use it (broad/multi-part questions over structured data) and when not to ('For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead'). It even covers the auth prerequisite and fallback for unsigned-in users, which is unusually explicit routing guidance.

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

All Osf 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have near-identical or heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, ask_pipeworx and validate_claim both answer factual questions, and discover_tools and suggest_questions both surface capabilities. The dense set of Polymarket and entity-research tools further blurs boundaries despite long descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are consistently snake_case, but they do not follow a single predictable verb_noun pattern: actionable names like ask_pipeworx, search_projects, and compare_entities mix with noun-style names like polymarket_edges, pipeworx_feedback, and recent_changes. The convention is readable but not uniform.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools exceeds the reasonable scope for a coherent server, and many are near-duplicate variants or members of sprawling tool families (ask_pipeworx variants, multiple Polymarket scanners, several meta/discovery tools). The set would be stronger with consolidation around a smaller number of distinct capabilities.

Completeness1/5

If this server is meant to provide OSF access, the surface is severely incomplete: only search_projects, search_preprints, and get_project exist, with no create/update/delete, file handling, registration, or contributor access. If it is meant to be a broader Pipeworx assistant, the OSF tools are unrelated and the domain is so scattered that coverage is incoherent.

Resources