Skip to main content
Glama

Public Suffix List

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=false. The description adds extensive non-obvious behavior: account/paid-tier requirements, parallel tool decomposition, 15-90s latency, findings packet structure (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at), explicit gaps[] never invented, contradictions[], citation_uri resolvability, hop field, and semantic excerpting. 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?

Very dense single paragraph with no filler; every sentence conveys a distinct operational fact. The account prerequisite is front-loaded before usefulness, which is sensible. It could benefit from bulleted structure for scannability, but the content density is justified for 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?

With no output schema and high tool complexity, the description fully carries the burden: it defines the findings packet, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, resolvable citations, semantic excerpting, latency, prerequisites, and fallback routing to siblings. Nothing needed to invoke or interpret the tool's results is missing.

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 question and depth are already documented. The description enriches this by explaining what each depth value does behaviorally (quick=3 facets single hop, standard adds gap recovery + contradictions, thorough adds iterative hop + contradictions) and emphasizes that broad multi-part questions are acceptable. Slightly redundant with the schema but adds real semantic value.

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?

States a specific verb+resource: grounded multi-source research across 1497 structured data sources, decomposing questions into facets and routing them to 5,724 tools in parallel, returning a findings packet. It also explicitly contrasts itself with open-web search and sibling tools, leaving no ambiguity about what this tool uniquely does.

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 guidance for broad/multi-part structured-data questions, and when-not-to: 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx', 'For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS... prefer ask_pipeworx', and 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead'. This is textbook decision routing.

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

All Public Suffix List 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

C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools serve overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all query data in similar ways. Prediction market tools (bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc.) are numerous and confusingly similar. Agents will struggle to choose the right tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no consistent pattern. Some use snake_case like ai_visibility_check, others are generic single words (parse, remember, forget). There is no uniform verb_noun structure, mixing descriptive names (entity_profile) with vague ones (list_version).

Tool Count3/5

35 tools is a large set for a server named 'Public Suffix List', but the actual domain (comprehensive data platform) may justify many tools. However, the count feels heavy for the apparent scope of the server, with many niche prediction market tools.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a wide range: data query, comparison, subscription, memory management, and claim verification. However, there are gaps in data modification (no update/delete for records) and some prediction market features have no direct counterparts. Overall, the set is fairly complete for its data-fetching purpose.

Resources