Skip to main content
Glama

Riot Games

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 1499 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 5,738 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 the readOnly/idempotent annotations, it discloses account/payment requirements, parallel delegation, output packet fields, gaps[] with no invented answers, contradictions[], citation_uri resolvability, semantic excerpting, and worst-case latency. There is no contradiction with the annotations; 'NOT open-web search' clarifies the source type rather than conflicting with openWorldHint=true.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Long, but every sentence carries a distinct decision-relevant fact and it is front-loaded with the account gate before purpose, routing, behavior, and latency. There is no filler or repetition.

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 fully specifies return semantics (findings packet, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation_uri, gaps[], contradictions[], hop) plus auth, alternatives, and timing. Nothing an agent needs to invoke it correctly 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 already 100% and the depth enum is well documented, so the baseline is met. The description adds decision-relevant extras: depth:'thorough' requires a paid plan, and the concrete multi-part question examples clarify what 'question' is expected to accept.

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 leads with 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1497 STRUCTURED data sources... in ONE call' and pins the exact use case: 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data.' It also names what the tool is not ('NOT open-web search') and differentiates it from ask_pipeworx, so an agent can distinguish them without opening the schemas.

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 routing rules: use ask_pipeworx if not signed in, for single lookups, and for breaking/colloquial current-news topics; use deep_research for broad multi-part structured-data questions. Even depth-level guidance ('standard re-angles unanswered gaps', 'thorough chases leads') tells the agent which configuration fits the task.

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

All Riot Games 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

B3.1/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes: champion_mastery and summoner_top_mastery both return mastery data, and the ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) plus deep_research all handle question-answering. The inclusion of an entire unrelated Pipeworx research suite under a Riot Games server creates cross-domain ambiguity, making it difficult to know which tool to select.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case, but the pattern varies: resource_by_key (account_by_puuid), verb_noun (generate_llms_txt, compare_entities), bare verbs (forget, recall, remember), and standalone nouns (match, status). Pipeworx and polymarket tools share consistent prefixes, but the Riot tools and meta-tools break the pattern, resulting in a mixed but still readable convention.

Tool Count2/5

42 tools is far above the typical 3-15 for a focused server. Only 10 are Riot Games-specific; the remaining 28 are unrelated Pipeworx, data-research, Polymarket, and memory tools. The excessive count dilutes the server's purpose and makes it feel bloated.

Completeness3/5

The Riot Games domain is covered reasonably well with accounts, summoners, mastery, matches, and rankings, but misses common endpoints like champion static data and live match info. The extensive non-Riot tools do not fill these gaps and instead add an unrelated, separately complete surface that distracts from the server's apparent purpose.

Resources