Skip to main content
Glama

tle

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 1506 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 5,767 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?

Beyond the annotations, the description discloses significant behavioral traits: authentication requirements, paid-tier constraints, parallel decomposition, findings packet structure, gap reporting, contradiction scanning, semantic excerpting, citation fetchability, and latency expectations. This goes well beyond what annotations already provide and is highly informative.

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 earns its place: auth requirements, sibling routing, core mechanics, output contents, depth differences, gap/citation behavior, and latency are all covered without filler. Critical caveats are front-loaded before the core function.

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?

Given the tool's complexity, no output schema, and the need to communicate auth, depth semantics, output packet contents, citations, gaps, contradictions, and timing, the description is remarkably complete. An agent has enough information to select, invoke, and interpret the result correctly without external context.

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 baseline is 3. The description adds extra meaning beyond the schema: 'thorough' requires a paid plan, 'quick' is described in relation to hop count, and the question parameter is explicitly framed as accepting broad/multi-part natural-language queries. This adds useful operational context.

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 verb and resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1506 STRUCTURED data sources' in one call. It clearly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx, making the tool's identity and scope immediately clear.

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 explicitly says when to use ask_pipeworx instead ('If you are not signed in...') and for single lookups ('For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead'). It also explains the tier/depth conditions, including that 'thorough' needs a paid plan, leaving little ambiguity about when this tool is appropriate.

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

All tle 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have clearly distinct jobs, but ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research are overlapping query/research entry points—and ask_pipeworx_beta is currently identical to ask_pipeworx. Similarly, ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence overlap by composition. The descriptions are detailed enough to choose correctly with care, but the boundaries are not always crisp.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names use lowercase snake_case, which keeps the surface readable, but the naming conventions are mixed: some are imperative verbs (get_tle, list_recent, validate_claim), some are noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts, pipeworx_trending), and several use domain prefixes without a clear verb (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges). This is still discoverable naming, but it does not follow a consistent verb_noun pattern.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is well beyond the well-scoped range, and the vast majority belong to a broad Pipeworx research/prediction-market platform rather than the server's apparent 'tle' satellite theme. Only get_tle, list_recent, and search_satellites directly match the server name. It feels like several tool surfaces aggregated into one server rather than one coherent product.

Completeness3/5

For the satellite TLE theme, NORAD lookup, name search, and recent-catalog listing are covered, but orbit propagation, pass prediction, and historical TLE data are missing. For the broader data-research surface, coverage is rich—query, grounded answers, entity resolution, comparison, validation, subscriptions, and memory are all present—so agents have workable paths for most tasks, but the server's mixed scope creates obvious thematic gaps.

Resources