Skip to main content
Glama

Thegamesdb

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 5,724 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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Even with annotations covering read-only/idempotent safety, the description adds a great deal: authentication requirements, paid-tier depth, parallel routing, the findings packet shape, citation_uri semantics, gaps[], contradictions[], semantic excerpting, and latency. There is no contradiction with the annotations; openWorldHint does not conflict with 'not open-web search' since the tool grounds in structured sources.

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?

The description is long, but every sentence carries operational value: auth, alternatives, output format, gaps behavior, depth semantics, and latency. It is front-loaded with the most critical constraint (account requirement) and the alternative tool, and the density is justified by the tool's complexity.

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?

There is no output schema, so the description correctly explains the return packet: verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citation, gaps[], contradictions[], and hop fields. It also covers latency, prerequisites, and failure modes. An agent has everything needed to invoke the tool and interpret results 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%, so the schema already documents both parameters. The description adds meaningful behavioral nuance for depth values beyond the schema by explaining what 'standard' and 'thorough' do at the research level, and clarifies that 'question' may be broad/multi-part. This exceeds the baseline for fully-covered schemas without duplicating the schema.

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 states a specific action ('grounded multi-source research'), a clear resource ('Pipeworx's 1497 structured data sources'), and explicitly contrasts itself with open-web search and ask_pipeworx. An agent can immediately tell this tool is for broad structured-data research, not casual or breaking-news queries.

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 concrete decision rules: use ask_pipeworx when not signed in, for single lookups, and for breaking/news topics; use deep_research for broad/multi-part structured questions. It even explains when results will be empty (topics outside the structured catalog), making the when-to-use boundary unusually explicit.

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

All Thegamesdb 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set contains several tightly overlapping clusters: ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical) vs ask_pipeworx_grounded, five polymarket_* tools with related purposes, and entity_profile vs compare_entities vs recent_changes covering similar company-research ground. The four game tools are distinct but swamped by the unrelated Pipeworx majority, making correct tool selection genuinely difficult.

Naming Consistency2/5

No coherent naming scheme spans the set: snake_case verb_noun (get_game, list_platforms, scan_dependency) coexists with verb_prefix descriptors (ask_pipeworx, generate_llms_txt), domain-prefixed nouns (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_trending), and bare verbs like recall and forget. Even within the Pipeworx cluster, styles vary unpredictably (ask_pipeworx vs pipeworx_feedback vs scan_competitor_ai_presence).

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is far too many for a server named Thegamesdb, where only 4 of 35 tools relate to the game database at all. The remaining 31 tools constitute a broad Pipeworx data platform with heavy internal overlap, making the surface feel bloated rather than well-scoped.

Completeness2/5

For the declared TheGamesDB domain, coverage is minimal: search, get-by-id, and list genres/platforms, with no per-platform game listings, images/artwork, or updates/refresh functionality. If the true domain is Pipeworx data access, the surface is fairly complete, but as presented under Thegamesdb there are major gaps and a severe identity mismatch.

Resources