Skip to main content
Glama

Steam

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 1497 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 5,721 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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly, idempotent, openWorld, and non-destructive; the description adds substantial context beyond those: account/tier requirements, latency estimates (15-60s, up to ~90s for thorough), never-invented gaps[], contradictions[] on standard/thorough, fetchable citations, semantic excerpting, and explicit NOT open-web search. 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

Long but well-structured and front-loaded with the account-required warning, then purpose, usage, and behavior. Every sentence serves a functional role; slight redundancy with the schema's depth enum explanation keeps it from a 5.

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, the description fully covers prerequisites, input expectations, output packet structure (evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, citation_uri, gaps[], contradictions[], hop), limitations, latency, and fallback routes. Nothing critical is missing for correct invocation.

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

Parameters3/5

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

Schema description coverage is 100%, with the depth enum and question field already fully explained in the schema. The description reinforces this with example questions and time estimates, but largely restates what the schema provides, adding only marginal value beyond the structured parameter definitions.

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 verb (grounded multi-source research), a specific resource (1496 structured data sources), and explicitly differentiates itself from ask_pipeworx and open-web search. It names sibling alternatives and the conditions to choose them, so an agent can distinguish it without opening 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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance (broad/multi-part questions over structured data), when-not-to-use (single lookup, breaking current news), and names ask_pipeworx as the alternative in both cases. Also includes a tier-based fallback if not signed in, making routing conditions unambiguous.

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

All Steam 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

C2.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools overlap significantly: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical variants, while deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve meta/onboarding purposes. The Steam-specific tools are distinct, but they are drowned out by a large unrelated set (Polymarket, Pipeworx, npm scanning) that makes selection confusing.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow no single convention: some are verb_noun (resolve_vanity_url, generate_llms_txt), some are noun-only (app_details, player_stats), and others use domain prefixes inconsistently (polymarket_arbitrage, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research). The mix of descriptive and vague names (process, run, execute) adds to the inconsistency.

Tool Count2/5

At 45 tools, the server is heavily overloaded, especially for a server named 'Steam' where only about a third of the tools actually relate to Steam. The rest belong to Pipeworx, Polymarket, and other unrelated domains, making the scope unclear and the tool count far too large for a focused purpose.

Completeness3/5

For the Steam domain, the server covers a reasonable range: app details/news, player counts, friends, owned games, achievements, stats, bans, levels, and summaries. However, notable gaps exist such as store search, reviews, wishlist, or any user inventory/trading features. The non-Steam tools add breadth but do not address these missing Steam operations.

Resources