Skip to main content
Glama

Usgs Earthquakes

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 1518 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 5,804 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. Added

TDQS

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent/non-destructive, so the bar is for added context — and the description delivers extensively: auth/tier gating (thorough needs a paid plan), latency expectations (15-60s, up to ~90s), return packet shape (verbatim evidence + confidence + source + fetched_at + gaps[] + contradictions[] + hop + citation_uri), a hallucination guarantee ('never invented'), semantically-excerpted records (not head-truncated), and citation resolvability. This far exceeds the annotation baseline and materially shapes agent expectations.

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 (~250 words), but every one of its twelve sentences carries unique decision-relevant information and it is strongly front-loaded: the auth gate comes first, followed by core purpose, then exclusions, then depth semantics, then return details, then latency. Minor redundancy exists (the 'not open-web search' point appears twice), and the citation_uri sentence is convoluted and could be tightened, so it loses one point from perfection.

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 an extremely complex tool — no output schema, three depth modes, auth tiers, parallel decomposition across 5,804 tools, and a structured findings packet — the description is remarkably complete. It covers return shape (with field names), prerequisites and tier gating, latency, exclusions, alternative routing, and the hallucination guarantee. There is no output schema to fall back on, so the description's honesty about gaps[], contradictions[], and resolvable citations does essential work. Nothing material is missing for an agent to call this 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 — both question and depth are already well documented in the schema. The description adds non-redundant value: expected latency per depth tier, the 'broad/multi-part is fine' sweet spot reinforced with examples, and prose-level explanation of what each hop mode does and when the contradictions[] scan appears. It elevates parameter understanding beyond the schema's enum text.

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 opens with a precise verb+resource statement: 'Grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's 1518 STRUCTURED data sources... in ONE call'. It then details the mechanism (decomposes question into facets, routes to 5,804 tools in parallel) and explicitly distinguishes itself from siblings: 'this is NOT open-web search' and 'For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx'. An agent cannot confuse this with ask_pipeworx, search_within, or validate_claim.

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 ('Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data' with concrete examples), when-not-to-use ('For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx', 'For BREAKING or colloquial CURRENT-NEWS... prefer ask_pipeworx'), and even a fallback condition tied to auth state ('If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead'). This is the gold standard for routing an agent to the correct tool.

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

All Usgs Earthquakes 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
Disambiguation1/5

The tool set is dominated by tools unrelated to USGS earthquakes (e.g., Polymarket betting, company profiles, memory operations). An agent would find it nearly impossible to distinguish the few earthquake-specific tools from the multitude of unrelated ones, leading to severe misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tool names follow a verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., search_earthquakes, count_earthquakes), which is consistent. However, the variety of verbs and domains creates a sense of incoherence, and some tool names are overly generic (e.g., process, run) in the broader context, though those are not present here. The naming pattern is acceptable but the inconsistency in domain scope reduces clarity.

Tool Count1/5

With 29 tools but only 3 directly related to earthquakes, the tool count is grossly inappropriate. The server's name suggests a focused purpose, but the vast majority of tools belong to other domains (e.g., Pipeworx queries, Polymarket betting, company data). This extreme mismatch makes the tool set bloated and misleading.

Completeness2/5

For earthquake data, the server provides only search, count, and get by ID. Missing are common operations like listing recent quakes, subscribing to alerts, or updating/correcting data. The coverage is minimal and insufficient for a comprehensive earthquake tool server, leaving significant gaps that agents could not work around.

Resources