Skip to main content
Glama

Ulid

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 1517 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 5,798 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.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / depth / description
      Previous value: -"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3 (single hop), standard=5 (default; adds a gap-recovery hop that re-angles unanswered facets + a contradictions[] scan across findings), thorough=8 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus the contradictions[] scan)."New value: +"How 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)."
  2. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / depth / description
      Previous value: -"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3 (single hop), standard=5 (default; adds a gap-recovery hop that re-angles unanswered facets), thorough=8 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus a contradictions[] scan across findings)."New value: +"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3 (single hop), standard=5 (default; adds a gap-recovery hop that re-angles unanswered facets + a contradictions[] scan across findings), thorough=8 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus the contradictions[] scan)."
  3. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / depth / description
      Previous value: -"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3, standard=5 (default), thorough=8 (paid plans). \"thorough\" also runs a second ITERATIVE hop — a planner inspects the first-pass findings/gaps and chases the most valuable leads or recovers gaps, resolving multi-step questions in one call."New value: +"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3 (single hop), standard=5 (default; adds a gap-recovery hop that re-angles unanswered facets), thorough=8 (paid; adds a full iterative hop that chases leads + recovers gaps, plus a contradictions[] scan across findings)."
  4. Changed1 schema field changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / depth / description
      Previous value: -"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3, standard=5 (default), thorough=8 (paid plans)."New value: +"How many facets to research in parallel: quick=3, standard=5 (default), thorough=8 (paid plans). \"thorough\" also runs a second ITERATIVE hop — a planner inspects the first-pass findings/gaps and chases the most valuable leads or recovers gaps, resolving multi-step questions in one call."
  5. First observed

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint, and non-destructive, but the description adds rich behavior beyond them: parallel routing to 5,798 tools, explicit gaps[] for unanswered facets, the 'never invented' guarantee, stable fetchable citation_uri, contradictions[], semantic excerpting of large records, and timing expectations. Nothing contradicts 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 dense and well-organized: critical account and alternative-tool info is front-loaded, followed by core functionality, use-case examples, depth behaviors, and edge details. There is minor redundancy in mentioning ask_pipeworx twice (account fallback and single-lookup alternative), but every other sentence earns its place given 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?

Since there is no output schema, the description carries the full burden of explaining the return value, and it does so thoroughly: findings packet with verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, stable citation, gaps[], contradictions[], and hop field. It also covers boundaries (not open-web), timing per depth tier, citation fetchability, and semantic excerpting. An agent has everything needed to decide and invoke 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% (both question and depth have descriptions). The description adds semantic value beyond the schema by explaining the paid-plan requirement for 'thorough', the behavioral difference between depth tiers (gap recovery and lead chasing), and that broad/multi-part questions are the intended use case. This goes slightly beyond the schema's already-detailed parameter descriptions.

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 1517 STRUCTURED data sources' in ONE call, and explicitly differentiates from siblings by saying 'this is NOT open-web search' and 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead.' The description makes the tool's scope and output packet clear enough that an agent can distinguish it from the many sibling tools.

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: 'Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data' vs 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx instead.' It also gives an authentication fallback ('If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead') and tier-specific guidance including the paid-plan condition for 'thorough'.

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

All Ulid 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all serve as query entry points (with ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now); polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread, and bet_research form a dense prediction-market suite; ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence are single vs. multi variants. An agent would frequently struggle to pick the right tool without reading long descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a clean snake_case convention and are mostly verb_noun (generate_ulid, parse_ulid, list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, validate_claim, compare_entities), making the set predictable. Minor deviations exist (entity_profile, deep_research, bet_research, ask_pipeworx_beta) but they are still readable and don't break the overall pattern.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold for a heavy surface, and the server name 'Ulid' suggests a tiny scope that wildly mismatches the actual content. While the real domain (Pipeworx data + prediction markets) is broad, the set bundles many subdomains into one server, making navigation and selection costly.

Completeness4/5

For the actual apparent domain—structured data research, entity lookups, verification, prediction-market analysis, memory, and subscriptions—coverage is strong: query, grounded query, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, resolution, validation, discovery, alerts, and memory tools are all present. ULID functionality is minimal but sufficient (generate + parse). Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct single-source browser beyond discover_tools) but agents can work around them.

Resources