Skip to main content
Glama

superhero

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 already declare read-only/idempotent behavior, and the description adds substantial context: account and paid-plan gating, parallel decomposition across 5,743 tools, explicit gaps[] that are never invented, contradictions[] scans, citation_uri fetchability guarantees, semantic excerpting, and latency expectations. With no output schema present, the description fully carries the burden of disclosing behavior.

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?

Long but every sentence carries distinct operational information — auth gating, sibling routing, output shape, latency, citation guarantees, and edge-case behavior. It front-loads the most decision-critical constraint (account requirement) and uses the sibling contrast early to disambiguate. For a complex tool with no output schema, this density is warranted.

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 research tool with no output schema, the description covers the return packet, edge behavior (gaps, contradictions), latency, auth requirements, and which topics yield empty results. Nothing an agent needs to call it correctly or interpret its output is missing.

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?

Schema coverage is 100%, and the description adds real meaning beyond it: it explains that 'question' should be broad and natural-language because decomposition is the point, and it clarifies what each depth level does behaviorally (gap recovery, lead-chasing, contradictions). This goes well above the baseline.

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?

Clearly states it performs grounded multi-source research over Pipeworx's 1500 structured data sources and explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from the sibling ask_pipeworx. The verb-resource pair (research + structured catalog) is specific enough that an agent can tell it apart without opening the schema.

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?

Explicitly states when to use it: broad/multi-part questions over structured data. It names alternatives — ask_pipeworx for single lookups and for breaking/colloquial current-news — and gives a fallback if the user is not signed in. It also explains depth-tier trade-offs, leaving little ambiguity about selection.

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

All superhero 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation1/5

The tool set is dominated by a huge number of unrelated tools for data lookup (Pipeworx, Polymarket, etc.), with only 4 superhero-specific tools. Many tools serve overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, deep_research, suggest_questions all handle general queries), making it very difficult for an agent to distinguish the right tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are highly inconsistent: some tools use CamelCase (ask_pipeworx, discover_tools), others use snake_case (get_hero, list_all, compare_entities), and some use long descriptive phrases (polymarket_arbitrage, scan_competitor_ai_presence). This mixture makes it hard to predict tool names.

Tool Count1/5

With 34 tools, the count is far too large for a server named 'superhero'. Most tools are unrelated to superheroes, making the set seem bloated and misaligned with the server's stated purpose. A focused superhero server would need at most 10 tools.

Completeness1/5

For the superhero domain, the tool set is severely incomplete: only basic retrieval of heroes and powerstats, with no search, filtering, creation, comparison, or battle mechanisms. For the broader data access domain it is more complete, but that is not the server's name.

Resources