Skip to main content
Glama

Trove

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 already cover readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: parallel decomposition across 5,724 tools, explicit gaps[] never invented, contradictions[], hop fields, citation_uri resolvability, semantic excerpting, and timing expectations. No contradiction with 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 this is a complex tool with no output schema and important caveats. It is front-loaded with the account requirement and key alternative, then moves from purpose to use cases to output behavior. A few details are redundant with the schema, but the density is justified.

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 tool with no output schema, this description is remarkably complete: it covers authentication, alternatives, input semantics, output packet shape, citations, gap handling, contradictions, latency, limitations, and fallback behavior. An agent has enough detail to invoke it appropriately and interpret results.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The description adds semantics beyond the schema by explaining how depth levels behave in practice: standard re-angles unanswered gaps, thorough chases leads, and both return contradictions[]. This meaningfully aids selection of the right depth value.

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 clearly states a specific verb+resource: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1497 STRUCTURED data sources... in ONE call.' It also distinguishes itself from open-web search and from ask_pipeworx, so an agent can tell it apart from siblings without deep inference.

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 explicit when-to-use guidance: 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data,' and explicit alternatives: 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx' and for breaking news 'prefer ask_pipeworx.' It even explains why, noting deep_research returns mostly empty gaps for non-catalog topics.

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

All Trove 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

Several tools have overlapping purposes (e.g., ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research all answer questions; entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes all cover company data). Descriptions provide distinctions, but an agent can easily misselect, especially between the Pipeworx query tools.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow mixed conventions: some use verb_noun (list_subscriptions, unsubscribe), others use descriptive phrases (ai_visibility_check, polymarket_arbitrage) or nouns (deep_research, entity_profile). No consistent pattern, making it harder to predict tool names.

Tool Count2/5

With 32 tools covering diverse domains (data lookups, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions), the server feels overloaded. The scope would be better served by splitting into smaller, focused servers (e.g., data query, prediction market, memory). Many tools are peripheral to a core purpose.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is fairly comprehensive within its domains: CRUD for memory (remember/recall/forget), subscription management, extensive data query options, and prediction market analysis. Minor gaps exist (no update memory, no direct trading), but agents can work around them.

Resources