Skip to main content
Glama

Traject Ecommerce

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?

The description adds substantial behavioral detail beyond the annotations: account and plan requirements, parallel decomposition, gap recovery, contradictions[], semantic excerpting, citation_uri resolvability, and expected latency of 15-90s. These details are consistent with the readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive hints, and 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 densely informative, front-loading critical account requirements before usage guidance. It contains some redundancy around ask_pipeworx and depth behavior, but each section earns its place given the tool's complexity and the absence of an output schema.

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 tool with no output schema, the description covers the full call scenario: prerequisites, parameter semantics, expected return shape (findings with evidence, confidence, source, citations, gaps[], contradictions[]), limitations, and latency. An agent has enough context to select, invoke, 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 baseline is 3, but the description adds value by tying depth:'thorough' to a paid plan, explaining facet counts, and attaching latency expectations to depth choices. It does not add much beyond the schema for the question parameter, but the depth-related constraints are meaningful.

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 and resource: grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1500 structured data sources in a single call, decomposing questions into facets and routing them in parallel. It explicitly distinguishes itself from open-web search and from sibling tools like ask_pipeworx.

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 and when-not-to-use guidance: use ask_pipeworx when not signed in, for single lookups, and for breaking or colloquial current-news topics. It also explains depth-tier tradeoffs, making selection among alternatives and parameter values clear.

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

All Traject Ecommerce 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, e.g., Amazon and Walmart tools are platform-specific. A few overlapping tools like ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research are differentiated by clear usage guidance, so an agent can disambiguate with reasonable effort.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names mix verbs and nouns with varying styles (e.g., ai_visibility_check, compare_entities, scan_competitor_ai_presence). There is no uniform pattern like verb_noun; some are descriptive phrases. The inconsistency is noticeable but not chaotic.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is too many for a server named 'Traject Ecommerce', as many tools cover unrelated domains (Polymarket, npm packages, SEC filings). The scope is excessively broad, making the server feel like a general-purpose plugin rather than a focused ecommerce toolset.

Completeness2/5

For an ecommerce-focused server, it only covers Amazon and Walmart product/search/reviews, missing major platforms and backend operations. The broader tool set is detailed but not ecommerce-specific, leaving obvious gaps for the intended purpose.

Resources