Skip to main content
Glama

What3words

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. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, openWorldHint=true, destructiveHint=false. The description adds substantial behavioral context beyond those hints: parallel tool routing, gap handling (gaps[] never invented), contradictions[] behavior, semantic excerpting rather than head-truncation, hop field semantics, citation fetchability guarantees, and expected latency ranges (15-60s, up to ~90s). This goes well beyond what annotations alone provide.

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 information-dense: every clause adds operational value (account requirements, alternatives, decomposition behavior, gap semantics, hop field, citation URI guarantee, excerpting, latency). It is front-loaded with the critical account/sign-in warning and scoping statement. It could be tightened slightly, but the length is justified by the tool's behavioral 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?

For a research tool with no output schema, the description thoroughly covers what an agent needs: what it returns (findings packet with evidence/confidence/source/fetched_at/citation), what it doesn't do (invent answers, gaps[] for unanswered facets), when to pick alternatives (single lookup, news topics), depth tiers and cost implications, latency expectations, and citation resolvability. The tool's complexity is high, and the description is proportionate.

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 description coverage is 100%, so the schema already documents both parameters well. The description adds context around depth tiers (explains quick/standard/thorough behavior, paid plan requirement for thorough) which the enum alone doesn't convey. This matches the baseline 3 for high schema coverage; the depth behavior detail is a slight bonus but the description doesn't dramatically extend param semantics beyond what the schema states.

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 the tool's purpose: grounded multi-source research across Pipeworx's structured data sources in one call. It explicitly contrasts with open-web search and names specific use cases (broad/multi-part questions over structured data) with examples. The verb-object pair (research across structured sources) is specific and distinguishable from siblings 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?

The description gives explicit when-to-use guidance: use for broad/multi-part questions over structured data, use ask_pipeworx for single lookups, use ask_pipeworx for news/current topics that aren't in the structured catalog. It also specifies account requirements and alternatives when not signed in. Multiple exclusions and alternatives are named clearly.

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

All What3words 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

There is significant overlap among the meta-query tools: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, suggest_questions, and validate_claim all route to the same underlying data catalog with only subtle differences in grounding or scope. Company-focused tools like entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, and resolve_entity also share fuzzy boundaries. The four what3words tools are clearly distinct, but they sit awkwardly beside a much larger, partially redundant Pipeworx/prediction-market cluster.

Naming Consistency3/5

All tool names use snake_case, which provides a base level of consistency, but the naming patterns vary widely: some are verb_noun (list_languages, recall, forget), some are X_to_Y (coords_to_words, words_to_coords), some are brand-prefixed (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), and some are bare concepts (deep_research, entity_profile, autosuggest). The ask_pipeworx family is internally consistent, as are the polymarket_* tools, but the overall set lacks a single predictable convention.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is well above the 25-tool threshold, and the server is named What3words when only 4 of the 35 tools actually belong to that geocoding domain. Even interpreted as a general data platform, 35 tools with a heavily overlapping meta-tool layer feels bloated rather than well-scoped. The what3words-specific surface would be appropriately sized at 4-5 tools on its own.

Completeness3/5

For what3words specifically, the surface is complete: coords_to_words, words_to_coords, autosuggest, and list_languages cover the core bidirectional conversion plus discovery. However, for the broader domain the server actually serves, there are notable gaps such as no direct resolve-by-pipeworx://-URI tool and no open-web search, despite citations and external data being advertised as fetchable. The mix of geocoding, data lookup, prediction markets, memory, and subscriptions makes it unclear what complete coverage would even mean.

Resources