Skip to main content
Glama

wikipedia

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 1499 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 5,738 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?

The description adds substantial behavior beyond the annotations: it discloses the findings-packet shape, gap reporting, never-invented evidence, contradiction scanning, semantic excerpting, citation fetchability, and latency expectations. It aligns with the readOnly/idempotent/destructive annotations and adds richer operational context.

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, with the account requirement front-loaded and clear routing guidance toward the end. Some clauses are run-on and slightly repetitive, but each major behavior earns its place.

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, the description covers return format, evidence structure, gaps, contradictions, latency, auth requirements, and alternatives. An agent has everything needed to decide when to call it and what to expect.

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?

The schema already documents both parameters with 100% coverage, so the baseline is 3. The description adds meaningful depth semantics beyond the schema: what each depth value does, how hops/gap recovery differ, and which depths require payment. It slightly overlaps with schema content but still adds 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 states a specific action and resource: multi-source structured research across Pipeworx's data catalog, explicitly distinguishing itself from open-web search and from the ask_pipeworx siblings. The 'Best for' clause clarifies the exact shape of question it is built for.

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?

Usage boundaries are explicit: use for broad/multi-part structured-data questions; use ask_pipeworx instead for single lookups and for breaking/current-news topics. It even covers account-tier routing, saying unauthenticated users should use ask_pipeworx.

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

All wikipedia 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool families have ambiguous boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are three variants of the same router (with beta currently identical), and the six polymarket tools plus bet_research heavily overlap in scanning and pricing edges. discover_tools, suggest_questions, and deep_research also all function as 'what should I query' entry points. Agents will struggle to select the right tool without carefully reading long descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Many tools follow a clear verb-first snake_case pattern (get_article_extract, resolve_entity, subscribe, validate_claim), and families like ask_pipeworx_* and polymarket_* are internally consistent. However, notable noun-phrase outliers such as entity_profile, deep_research, bet_research, recent_changes, pipeworx_feedback, and polymarket_edge_tracker break the convention. The naming is readable but not predictable across the full set.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well over the 25+ threshold for a typical MCP server, and for a server named 'wikipedia' it is especially disproportionate: only 5 tools actually deal with Wikipedia while 31 are Pipeworx data, prediction-market, memory, subscription, and feedback utilities. The count reflects a broad all-in-one platform crammed into a Wikipedia-labeled surface rather than a well-scoped server. This is a significant scope mismatch.

Completeness4/5

The Wikipedia portion is reasonably complete for read-only lookup: search, summary, sections, full extract, and random discovery cover common encyclopedic questions without dead ends. The broader Pipeworx surface is also extensive, with query, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution/profile/comparison, claim validation, memory, and subscription lifecycle tools. Minor gaps remain (no article categories/history, no update for subscriptions, no direct fetch of a citation URI), but they are workable.

Resources