Skip to main content
Glama

Worms

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses far more than annotations offer: account and paid-plan gating, parallel execution across 5,724 tools, 15–90s latency, explicit gaps[] rather than invented answers, resolvable citation URIs, hop fields, contradictions on standard/thorough, and semantic excerpting. The readOnlyHint and idempotentHint annotations are consistent with this read-only research behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Though long, the description is dense and front-loaded with the most critical decision factors: account requirement, alternative tool, and the structured-data scope. Every sentence carries actionable information about usage, output, failure behavior, or latency; nothing is filler for a tool this complex.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully covers return semantics: findings packet fields, verbatim evidence, confidence, source, fetched_at, pipeworx:// citations, gaps[], contradictions[], and hop. It also explains expected latency and the main failure mode (empty gaps for non-structured topics), so an agent knows exactly what to expect even before invoking it.

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 operational color around depth ('standard' re-angles gaps; 'thorough' chases leads; multi-step questions resolve in one call) and latency, but most of that is already present in the input schema's depth description. The added value over the schema is modest rather than transformative.

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 action ('Grounded multi-source research') and a specific resource ('Pipeworx's 1497 STRUCTURED data sources'), then explains the mechanism: decomposition, parallel routing, and a findings packet. It explicitly distinguishes itself from ask_pipeworx, so an agent can select it correctly.

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 ('Best for broad/multi-part questions over structured data'), explicit alternatives ('For a single lookup use ask_pipeworx'), and even an account prerequisite fallback ('If you are not signed in, use ask_pipeworx instead'). It also warns against using this tool for breaking or current-news topics.

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

All Worms 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have functionally overlapping purposes, most notably ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta, which currently behave identically. The many prediction-market tools are each distinct but still leave boundaries that require careful reading, and the query/research tools (ask_pipeworx, deep_research, potentially validate_claim) have an ease of being confused. Fine verbal descriptions reduce but do not eliminate the ambiguity for an agent.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are lowercase snake_case and many follow a verb_noun pattern, such as resolve_entity, get_classification, and list_subscriptions. However, the set is inconsistent overall: it mixes single verbs (remember, forget, subscribe), noun-style names (entity_profile, recent_alerts), and several prefixed families (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*). It's readable but not a coherent, uniformly applied convention throughout.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools in one server is well beyond the generally well-scoped 3–15 range. The server appears to bundle several unrelated domains together—WoRMS taxonomy, Pipeworx data research, Polymarket analysis, memory utilities, and subscriptions—creating avoidable cognitive load and making selection more difficult. Splitting into targeted servers would greatly improve the interface.

Completeness2/5

The server is named 'Worms' and includes a WoRMS taxonomy subdomain, but that subdomain only supports searching, classification, and common names—the rest of the marine taxonomy surface is missing (e.g., direct AphiaID record lookup, distributions, synonyms, hierarchical children). The remainder of the tools serve an entirely different data-research purpose, so the server is incomplete relative to its name AND the bundled extra domains add confusion rather than a coherent cohesive coverage.

Resources