Skip to main content
Glama

Sciencebase

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?

Beyond annotations (readOnly/openWorld/idempotent), it discloses account requirements, paid tier for thorough, result shape (findings with confidence/source/fetched_at/citation), gaps[] behavior, contradictions[], fetchable citation_uri, excerpting style, and expected latency. Nothing in the description conflicts with the 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 front-loaded with the critical account constraint and is dense but readable. It is longer than typical, yet most sentences earn their place because there is no output schema and the tool has complex depth/result behavior; there is no tautology or filler.

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 2-param tool with no output schema, this is complete: it covers authorization, tier pricing, alternatives, input style, output packet, failure/gap behavior, citation resolvability, and timing. An agent has enough information to select and invoke the tool 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?

The schema already covers both params at 100% and gives detailed depth semantics, so the baseline is 3. The description adds value by framing depth choices in terms of iterative hops, gap recovery, contradictions, and latency, and by giving concrete examples of valid broad questions, which helps an agent choose parameters correctly.

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 the exact action: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1500 STRUCTURED data sources', explains decomposition and parallel routing, and explicitly differentiates itself from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx. An agent can understand what deep_research does and how it differs from siblings.

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: use ask_pipeworx when not signed in, for single lookups, and for breaking/current-event topics; use deep_research for broad/multi-part structured-data questions. It also maps depth levels to use cases and latency, 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 Sciencebase 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 distinctly described purposes, but there is some overlap among query tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim, which could cause confusion for an agent.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are consistently snake_case but vary in pattern: some are verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), while others are noun_noun (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage) or longer phrases (scan_competitor_ai_presence), making the naming system inconsistent.

Tool Count2/5

With 33 tools, the server feels over-scoped. Many tools are niche (e.g., polymarket-specific ones) and the high number exceeds the typical range for a focused server, leading to potential overwhelm.

Completeness3/5

The server covers a broad range of query and monitoring tasks for its domains, but lacks write operations (except memory tools). There are notable gaps like no tool for creating or editing ScienceBase items, which seems incomplete given the server's name.

Resources