Skip to main content
Glama

swapi

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint as safe. The description adds substantial context beyond annotations: parallel decomposition across 5,743 tools, timeframe expectations (15-60s, up to ~90s), gap-filled output with gaps[] and contradictions[], semantic excerpting, fetchable citations (citation_uri only when resolvable), and the free/paid tier requirement for depth:'thorough'. No contradiction exists.

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 every sentence carries signal: the critical account requirement is front-loaded, the most common use-case comparisons appear early, and technical details (hops, citations, contradiction scans) are grouped logically toward the end. With such a rich tool, the length is justified; no filler is present.

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?

No output schema exists, but the description explains the return packet (verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citation, gaps[] and contradictions[]) and latency expectations. It also notes the output caveat about citations being resolvable via resources/read. For a tool with this complexity, the description covers everything an agent needs to know before calling it.

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%: both 'question' and 'depth' are fully documented. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema by explaining how depth values affect hop behavior (gap recovery on standard, iterative lead-chasing on thorough) and clarifying that the 'question' can be broad/multi-part since decomposition is the point. This is a meaningful addition on top of an already-covered schema, so a 4 (not a 3) is warranted.

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+resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1500 STRUCTURED data sources... in ONE call'. It explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and names what it is NOT. The description also separates it from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx by contrasting scope ('NOT open-web search', 'not many LLM calls').

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: 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data' and clear exclusions: 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx' and 'For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS... prefer ask_pipeworx'. It also instructs on account prerequisites and fallback behavior when not signed in ('use ask_pipeworx instead'). No ambiguity remains.

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

All swapi 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

The tool set mixes two unrelated domains (Star Wars and Pipeworx data services), which is initially confusing. Within the Pipeworx suite, tools like ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded are clearly differentiated, but some overlap exists (e.g., deep_research vs. compare_entities both do multi-source lookups). Overall, most tools have distinct purposes, but the domain mismatch lowers clarity.

Naming Consistency4/5

All tools use snake_case consistently (e.g., ask_pipeworx, entity_profile, resolve_entity). The naming pattern is mostly verb_noun or descriptive_compound, which is predictable. Minor deviation: some tools start with a verb (ask_pipeworx) while others start with a noun (entity_profile), but the style is uniform.

Tool Count3/5

34 tools is on the high side but not unreasonable for a data-heavy server. However, the set covers two distinct domains (Star Wars and Pipeworx), making it feel bloated. The count could be reduced by separating the domains or pruning rarely-used tools.

Completeness3/5

The Pipeworx side appears comprehensive, covering queries, profiles, comparisons, subscriptions, alerts, and memory. The Star Wars side is incomplete—it lacks tools for vehicles, species, or individual characters (only search_people exists). The overall surface has gaps in one of its two domains.

Resources