Skip to main content
Glama

Tfl

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 1496 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 5,718 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 already mark this as read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description adds substantial context beyond that: account requirements, paid tier for 'thorough', latency expectations, the gaps[] array that never fabricates, citation_uri fetchability, contradictions[] behavior, and semantic excerpting. There is no contradiction with 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is long but information-dense, with every sentence contributing a distinct fact or guideline. Critical details like account requirements and the ask_pipeworx alternative are front-loaded. It could be restructured into clearer scannable sections, but there is no dead weight.

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?

Without an output schema, the description fully compensates by detailing the return packet: verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citations, gaps[], contradictions[], hop field, and citation_uri. It also covers auth, latency, and when the tool will underperform. For a tool of this complexity, an agent has everything needed to select and invoke it correctly.

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 both parameters, so the parameter descriptions already document 'question' and 'depth'. The tool description nonetheless adds meaning by explaining how depth values affect hop behavior, gap recovery, and contradiction detection, and by clarifying that broad multi-part questions are intended. This is above the baseline of 3 but not a full 5 because the schema already carries the core semantics.

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 identifies a specific action and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1496 STRUCTURED data sources' and explains the decomposition/parallel routing behavior. It explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx with concrete examples, so an agent can immediately tell what this tool does and what it is not.

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?

The description gives clear when-to-use guidance: 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data.' It also names the alternative ask_pipeworx for single lookups and breaking/current-news topics, and even states an account prerequisite with a fallback if not signed in. This is explicit, actionable routing information.

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

All Tfl 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

Many tools have distinct purposes, but there are multiple ask_pipeworx variants and several Polymarket tools with similar functions, causing potential confusion. Most other tools are clearly differentiated, but the overlap in query and betting tools reduces clarity.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming conventions are inconsistent: some tools use snake_case (ai_visibility_check), others use descriptive phrases (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt), and some are very short (arrivals). Lengths vary widely, and there is no uniform pattern.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is excessive for a coherent server; the scope is too broad, spanning transport, data lookups, prediction markets, and utilities. This suggests a lack of focus, making the server feel like a bundled collection rather than a well-scoped toolkit.

Completeness3/5

The server covers multiple domains but lacks depth. London transport tools are partial (e.g., no real-time tube positions), and domains like weather or stock quotes rely on the ask_pipeworx meta-tool rather than dedicated tools. The surface is broad but not comprehensively complete in any area.

Resources