Skip to main content
Glama

Semrush

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

A5/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Annotations only cover read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive traits. The description adds substantial behavioral detail: account requirements, paid tier for 'thorough', decomposition into facets, parallel routing to 5,743 tools, the findings packet structure (evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation_uri, gaps[], contradictions[]), second-hop iteration, semantic excerpting, and typical latency. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is long but every sentence earns its place: account requirement and the alternative are front-loaded, followed by core capability, disambiguation, depth mechanics, output structure, and performance expectations. It is dense yet scannable, with no 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 tool with no output schema, the description clearly defines the return value (findings packet with specific fields), explains gap and contradiction handling, mentions the 'hop' field and citation_uri resolvability, and sets latency expectations. It covers all information an agent needs to call it correctly and interpret results.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

While schema coverage is 100%, the description enriches both parameters: 'question' is explained as natural language and explicitly says broad/multi-part is fine, and 'depth' is described with a play-by-play of what each mode does (quick, standard, thorough) beyond the schema's enum descriptions. This goes far 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 states a specific verb ('Grounded multi-source research') and resource ('Pipeworx's 1500 STRUCTURED data sources'), and explicitly contrasts it with open-web search and the sibling ask_pipeworx. It also names the alternative for single lookups and current news, so an agent can clearly distinguish it 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?

Provides explicit usage guidance: best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data, tells when to prefer ask_pipeworx (single lookup, breaking/current news), and includes account/login prerequisites with a fallback alternative. The depth parameter is explained with concrete behaviors for each value.

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

All Semrush 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but there is some overlap: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded are very similar, and the multiple Polymarket tools could be confused. The memory tools (remember, recall, forget) are distinct.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names consistently use snake_case, but the pattern is not strictly verb_noun. Some names are descriptive phrases (e.g., scan_competitor_ai_presence), while others are straightforward (e.g., keyword_overview). Overall readable but not highly consistent.

Tool Count3/5

32 tools is on the high side for a single server, but the scope is broad (SEO, finance, FDA, betting, memory). The tool count feels slightly excessive, yet each tool appears justified by its specific use case.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers a wide range of business research needs: SEO, SEC filings, FDA data, betting analytics, and memory. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct social media or HR data), but the coverage is impressive for a general-purpose data server.

Resources