Skip to main content
Glama

Slack_connect

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond the readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive annotations, the description discloses account and plan requirements, the parallel routing behavior, the findings-packet shape, gaps[] that are never invented, citation discoverability constraints, semantic excerpting, and expected latency. It exceeds what annotations alone communicate and does not contradict them.

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 long but information-dense and front-loaded, starting with the account prerequisite and core function before moving to alternatives, depth semantics, output contract, and latency. Slight redundancy with the depth enum description and the dense single block prevent a perfect conciseness score.

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?

Even without an output schema, the description specifies the findings-packet contents, citation semantics, contradictions array, gaps behavior, timeout expectations, and failure mode for current-news topics. An agent has everything needed to decide whether to call this tool and what to expect back.

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% and both parameters are already documented there. The description still adds useful semantic context: broad/multi-part questions are acceptable, quick/standard/thorough are tied to facet counts and recovery behavior, and thorough requires a paid plan. Minor redundancy with the schema's depth description keeps this at a 4 rather than 5.

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 a specific verb-resource pair: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1497 STRUCTURED data sources' and explains the decomposition-and-routing mechanism. It explicitly contrasts itself with open-web search and with ask_pipeworx, so an agent can distinguish this tool from siblings without guessing.

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 ('Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data'), when-not-to-use guidance ('For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx'), and a current-news exclusion with a named alternative. It also handles the signed-out fallback: 'If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead.'

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

All Slack_connect 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, particularly the multiple 'ask_pipeworx' variants and various Polymarket tools that serve similar functions. The lack of clear boundaries between data retrieval tools makes it difficult for an agent to choose the right one.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming patterns are inconsistent: Slack tools use a 'slack_' prefix, while Pipeworx tools use a mix of verbs (ask_, validate_, resolve_) and nouns (entity_profile, bet_research). No uniform convention is applied across the set.

Tool Count3/5

With 36 tools, the count is high but not unreasonable for a comprehensive data platform. However, the inclusion of only 5 Slack tools in a server named 'Slack_connect' indicates a mismatch between tool count and intended purpose.

Completeness1/5

For a Slack integration, the tool surface is severely incomplete—missing core operations like creating channels, archiving, reactions, or message threading. The Pipeworx tools are extensive but unrelated to the server's stated purpose.

Resources