Skip to main content
Glama

Podcastindex

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 1497 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 5,721 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 declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint, but the description goes far beyond: requires account (free/paid), latency ranges (15-90s), returns gaps[] for unanswered facets, never invents data, standard/thorough add contradictions[], citations only when resolvable, and semantic excerpting. This is rich behavioral disclosure beyond structured metadata.

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 lengthy but highly information-dense; every sentence adds a distinct fact (auth, latency, gaps, citations, hop field). It is front-loaded with the most critical operational detail (account requirement and alternative). Some minor redundancy across repetitions of gaps[] and contradictions[], but overall efficiently packed.

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 research tool with no output schema, the description covers all essential context: auth prerequisites, alternative routing, return structure, edge cases (current news), latency, and depth behavior. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call and what to expect.

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 description coverage is 100% and already documents both parameters. The description reinforces depth semantics (quick=3, standard=3+, thorough=6) and clarifies that question can be broad/multi-part, adding nuance beyond the schema's basic descriptions. Slightly redundant with schema but still valuable.

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+resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1497 STRUCTURED data sources' in ONE call, decomposing into facets and routing to 5,721 tools. It explicitly distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx and open-web search, making its unique purpose unmistakable.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use and when-not-to-use guidance: use for broad/multi-part questions over structured data; use ask_pipeworx for single lookups, breaking/current-news topics, or when not signed in. Also specifies depth tiers and their trade-offs, leaving no ambiguity about alternatives.

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

All Podcastindex 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded overlap (one is grounded), and bet_research/validate_claim/compare_entities/entity_profile all query Pipeworx data with different intents, which could cause confusion.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are consistently lower_snake_case and mostly follow a verb_noun pattern (e.g., search_podcasts, get_podcast, list_subscriptions). A few compound names like pipeworx_feedback and polymarket_arbitrage deviate slightly but remain readable.

Tool Count2/5

30 tools is excessive for a server named 'Podcastindex'. It aggregates unrelated domains (podcasts, Pipeworx queries, Polymarket, memory, etc.), making it feel like a kitchen sink rather than a focused tool set.

Completeness3/5

For podcasts, the tool set covers search, metadata, episodes, and trending but lacks subscription management. For the broader Pipeworx domain, ask_pipeworx and discover_tools provide wide access, but specific gaps exist (e.g., no direct SEC filing query). Overall, the surface is broad but uneven.

Resources