Skip to main content
Glama

Senate Lobbying

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already set readOnly/openWorld/idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavior beyond that: it returns a findings packet with confidence, source, fetched_at, and stable pipeworx:// citations, reports gaps[] instead of inventing answers, runs contradiction scans on standard/thorough, and states latency and paid-tier requirements. No statement contradicts 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is dense but every sentence adds a distinct operational fact: auth, alternative tools, scope, execution model, output shape, failure behavior, depth semantics, citation fetchability, excerpting, and latency. It is front-loaded with the most decision-relevant information (account requirement and sibling routing) before the tool internals.

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 two parameters, the description carries the full burden of explaining what the agent gets back and when the call is appropriate; it covers output structure, caveats, latency, auth, and alternative routing. An agent can select, call, and interpret the result without guessing.

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% for the two parameters, so the baseline is 3. The description goes beyond the schema by explaining the practical effect of depth choices on output (gap recovery, lead chasing, contradictions[]) and gives worked examples for the question parameter, earning the extra point.

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 operation: grounded multi-source research over Pipeworx's structured data sources in one call, and explicitly contrasts itself with open-web search. It distinguishes from the ask_pipeworx siblings by data scope ('1500 STRUCTURED data sources') and by the facet-decomposition execution model ('NOT open-web search').

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?

Gives explicit routing rules: use ask_pipeworx when not signed in, for single lookups, and for breaking or colloquial news topics; use deep_research for broad/multi-part structured-data questions. It also tells when to choose depth values via the gap-recovery and lead-chasing behavior.

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

All Senate Lobbying 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

There are several near-duplicate clusters: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly described as currently identical), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route to the same underlying data; the six Polymarket tools (bet_research, arbitrage, edges, edge_tracker, fill_risk, kalshi_spread) heavily overlap in purpose and are easy to confuse. Even detailed descriptions do not fully resolve which tool an agent should pick first.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use snake_case and many follow a verb_noun pattern (search_filings, get_filing, list_issue_codes, resolve_entity), but there is a mix of verb-first names (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, generate_llms_txt), noun-first names (recent_changes, entity_profile, pipeworx_trending), and brand-prefixed families (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*). The naming is readable but not a single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

A server named 'Senate Lobbying' exposes 34 tools, but only three (search_filings, get_filing, list_issue_codes) relate to LDA lobbying data. The remaining 31 cover generic Pipeworx data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility, and npm package audits—an extreme overreach for the apparent scope and likely to confuse an agent expecting a focused lobbying toolkit.

Completeness2/5

For the lobbying domain implied by the server name, only search, get-one-filing, and issue-code enumeration exist; there is no aggregation/stats tool, no lobbyist/client entity resolution for LDA, no registrant or foreign-entity browsing, and no coverage of related concepts like lobbying firm hierarchies or spending trends. The generic Pipeworx tools fill a different domain, so the lobbying-specific surface has significant gaps.

Resources