Skip to main content
Glama

Bls

by io.github.pipeworx-io

AI Visibility Check

ai_visibility_check
Read-onlyIdempotent

Probe one or more LLMs for what they know about a business / brand / product / topic and score visibility (0-100) per model. Default model is Workers AI Llama-3.3-70b (free); pass _apiKey to also probe Anthropic (BYO key — you pay Anthropic directly for those calls). Returns per-model {score, confidence, signals, raw_response} + a combined view. Useful for AI-marketing audits, pre-launch brand checks, competitive monitoring.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
entityYesThe thing to ask about. Brand/business name, product name, person, or topic. E.g. "Pipeworx", "OpenInvoice", "Acme Corp pricing".
modelsNoWhich models to probe. Supported: "workers-ai" (free default), "anthropic" (requires _apiKey). Omit for just workers-ai.
_apiKeyNoOptional Anthropic API key (sk-ant-...) — only needed if "anthropic" is in models. Passed straight through to api.anthropic.com.
contextNoOptional: a phrase locating the entity (e.g. "Boston restaurant", "B2B SaaS"). Helps disambiguate common names.

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnly=true and idempotent. The description adds key behavioral details: Anthropic requires a BYO key with direct billing, default model is free, and output structure (per-model score, confidence, signals, raw_response + combined). No contradictions with annotations.

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?

Three efficient sentences. First front-loads core action and output. Second adds optional auth details. Third lists use cases. No filler.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

No output schema, but description covers return structure (score, confidence, signals, raw_response per model + combined). It addresses key details like model selection and API key requirement. Could mention rate limits or caching, but overall adequate given complexity.

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% with good descriptions. The description adds value by explaining the default model behavior, the need for '_apiKey' only when probing Anthropic, and how 'context' disambiguates entities. This enriches beyond schema.

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 it probes LLMs for brand visibility and scores 0-100. It specifies default model and optional Anthropic probe. It lists concrete use cases (AI-marketing audits, pre-launch checks, competitive monitoring) which differentiates it from sibling research tools.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides explicit use cases (AI-marketing audits, brand checks, competitive monitoring). It does not directly contrast with alternatives like 'deep_research' or 'compare_entities', but the specific use cases imply when this tool is appropriate.

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

All Bls 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

The ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded trio are nearly indistinguishable, with beta currently behaving identically to the stable version. Entity_profile, recent_changes, and compare_entities also overlap heavily as multi-source company research tools, and the six polymarket tools create additional boundary confusion.

Naming Consistency2/5

Most tools use snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern: some are imperative phrases (ask_pipeworx, bls_get_series, resolve_entity), while others are noun phrases (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges, recent_alerts). Even within the bls_* family, bls_latest breaks the verb pattern established by bls_get_series and bls_search.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is well above the 25+ threshold for 'too many', and the server is named Bls yet only four tools actually serve BLS data. Most of the remaining tools cover unrelated domains like Polymarket arbitrage, memory, feedback, and general Pipeworx routing, making the count feel inflated for the apparent purpose.

Completeness3/5

The four BLS-specific tools cover search, browse, historical series fetch, and latest value, but there is no multi-series fetch or series metadata detail, which is a notable gap for a BLS-focused server. The broader Pipeworx toolset is extensive, but the lack of a coherent stated domain makes completeness hard to evaluate as a unified surface.

Resources