Skip to main content
Glama

Vizier

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already mark it read-only/idempotent, and the description adds substantial behavioral context beyond those hints: parallel facet routing, gaps[] for unanswered facets, contradictions[] scanning on standard/thorough, per-finding citation_uri with a fetchability guarantee, semantic excerpting, and latency bounds. It contradicts no annotation.

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 nearly every sentence carries decision-relevant information: auth prerequisite, scope, exclusions, output packet shape, depth semantics, and latency. It is front-loaded with the account warning. It could be lightly restructured with paragraphs, but it contains no real filler.

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 and the absence of an output schema, the description is highly complete: it covers prerequisites, when-not-to-use, output structure, citation semantics, depth behavior, and expected latency. An agent has enough to invoke it correctly and anticipate its return shape.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Parameters3/5

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 does add a small amount of extra parameter context (e.g., thorough requires a paid plan, and the practical effect of each depth level), but it mostly restates or lightly expands what the schema already documents for depth and question.

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 names a specific verb ('research') and a specific resource ('Pipeworx's 1500 STRUCTURED data sources'), and explicitly contrasts itself with open-web search. It also distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx by positioning deep_research as the multi-facet, parallel-decomposition tool.

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?

It states exactly when to use it ('Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data') and gives explicit alternatives: single lookups and breaking/current-news topics should go to ask_pipeworx. It even handles the not-signed-in case by routing to ask_pipeworx. Little is left to inference.

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

All Vizier 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
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools occupy adjacent roles: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical in behavior, discover_tools and suggest_questions both serve discovery, and the astronomy plus Polymarket scanners have overlapping boundaries. The descriptions are unusually detailed and do differentiate most tools, but the number of near-neighbor tools still creates real selection risk.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names are uniformly snake_case and mostly descriptive, which helps, but the grammatical pattern is inconsistent: verb_noun names (compare_entities, resolve_entity) sit alongside bare nouns (catalogs, object) and bare verbs (remember, recall, forget). It is readable but not a predictable verb_noun convention.

Tool Count2/5

At 35 tools, the surface is well beyond what an agent can comfortably hold in mind. The set mixes a data-research core with one-off utilities like generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, and AI-visibility auditing, making it feel like a grab-bag rather than a scoped server.

Completeness4/5

The core data-research workflow is strongly covered: plain and grounded Q&A, deep research, entity resolution, profiles, comparisons, claim validation, recent changes, tool discovery, memory, and subscription lifecycle all exist. Minor gaps remain, such as no subscription-update operation and no generic citation-fetch tool, but there are no serious dead ends.

Resources