Skip to main content
Glama

Bright Data

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Entity Profile

entity_profile
Read-onlyIdempotent

"Tell me about X" / "research Acme" / "brief me on Tesla" / "what does Apple do" / "company profile for Microsoft" / "give me the rundown on NVDA" / "everything you know about $TICKER" — full cross-source profile of a US public company in ONE parallel call. ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups when the user asks for a holistic view. Fans out across SEC EDGAR, XBRL, USPTO patents, federal contracts (USAspending), FDA-licensed biologics (Purple Book), H-1B hiring (DOL LCA), news and GLEIF, and returns: cik + company_name (+ resolved_from/resolved_to when value was a name); recent_filings (up to 5 with pipeworx://edgar/company/{cik}/filings/{accession} URIs); fundamentals (LATEST 10-K Revenues + NetIncomeLoss + Cash, sorted period_end DESC); patents (USPTO PatentsView API sunset May 2025 — soft-fails until reactivated); federal_contracts (USAspending awards where the company is the recipient); fda_products (FDA-licensed biologics — vaccines, cell/gene therapies — from the Purple Book; a company with only small-molecule/generic drugs will show none here, that is expected, not a failure); hiring (H-1B sponsorship volume + salary range from DOL LCA filings); recent news mentions via GDELT→GNews fallback; LEI via GLEIF. sources_used / sources_failed say which of these actually returned data for THIS company — an empty section is a real "no data", not a bug. Pass a ticker ("AAPL"), zero-padded CIK ("0000320193"), OR a company name ("Moderna") — names now resolve via SEC EDGAR's company-name match; a private company (no CIK/ticker) returns resolved:false with an explicit notes line, not a bare failure. type accepts "company" or "ticker" interchangeably — both take the same value shapes above.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
typeYes"company" or "ticker" — both are accepted and behave identically; `value` can be a ticker, CIK, or company name either way. person/place coming soon.
valueYesTicker (e.g., "AAPL"), zero-padded CIK (e.g., "0000320193"), or company name (e.g., "Moderna") — names resolve via SEC EDGAR company-name match.

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Changed3 schema fields changed
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / description
      Previous value: -"Entity type. Only \"company\" supported today; person/place coming soon."New value: +"\"company\" or \"ticker\" — both are accepted and behave identically; `value` can be a ticker, CIK, or company name either way. person/place coming soon."
    • changedInput schema / properties / type / enum
      Previous value: -[
-  "company"
-]New value: +[
+  "company",
+  "ticker"
+]
    • changedInput schema / properties / value / description
      Previous value: -"Ticker (e.g., \"AAPL\") or zero-padded CIK (e.g., \"0000320193\"). Names not supported — use resolve_entity first if you only have a name."New value: +"Ticker (e.g., \"AAPL\"), zero-padded CIK (e.g., \"0000320193\"), or company name (e.g., \"Moderna\") — names resolve via SEC EDGAR company-name match."
  2. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description is exceptionally transparent about behavior: it fans out across many sources, explains what each returned section contains, discloses soft-fail behavior for patents, notes that empty FDA product sections are expected for small-molecule companies, and clarifies that sources_used/sources_failed indicate real no-data cases. It also explains name resolution, private-company behavior, and fallback chains (GDELT→GNews), far beyond what the annotations already declare.

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

Conciseness3/5

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

The description is long and information-dense but structured as one massive run-on paragraph with many embedded caveats and parentheticals, making it harder to parse. It is front-loaded with trigger examples and the ALWAYS PREFER directive, but it repeats some schema information (the accepted value shapes) and would benefit from bulleted return-section descriptions. The content is valuable, but the structure is not optimized for agent consumption.

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 that there is no output schema, the description must carry the burden of explaining return values and edge cases, and it does so thoroughly: it enumerates returned fields (cik, company_name, recent_filings with URIs, fundamentals, sources_used/failed), explains expected empty results, and covers resolution failure modes. This is complete enough for an agent to invoke the tool and interpret results correctly.

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

Parameters5/5

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3, but the description adds meaningful semantic value: it clarifies that 'company' and 'ticker' are interchangeable, that value can be a ticker, CIK, or company name, that names resolve via SEC EDGAR, and that private companies return resolved:false with a notes line. These details are not fully inferable from the schema alone.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Purpose4/5

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description clearly identifies a specific verb and resource: producing a full cross-source profile of a US public company in one parallel call, with strong trigger-phrase examples. It distinguishes itself from 'chaining single-pack SEC/XBRL/news lookups' and positions itself as the preferred holistic tool, though it does not explicitly name or contrast specific sibling tools like deep_research, compare_entities, or resolve_entity.

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 gives explicit usage contexts ('Tell me about X', 'research Acme', 'company profile for Microsoft') and states ALWAYS PREFER over chaining single-pack lookups when a holistic view is requested. It does not explicitly state when not to use it, but the holistic-view condition and the preference directive establish clear selection guidance.

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

All Bright Data 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

The ask_pipeworx family (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) has significant boundary overlap, and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx today. The six polymarket_* tools plus bet_research also cover heavily overlapping prediction-market territory, so an agent could easily route a query to the wrong one despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tools follow a consistent snake_case verb_noun pattern (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities, generate_llms_txt, list_subscriptions, validate_claim, scan_dependency). Minor deviations exist — entity_profile is noun-noun, brightdata_serp/brightdata_unlock use a vendor prefix, and remember/recall/forget are bare verbs — but the overall style is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools this exceeds the 25+ threshold that signals an over-heavy surface. While the server covers multiple domains (data lookup, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, AI visibility), many of those domains carry redundant variants that could be consolidated, making the count feel bloated rather than well-scoped.

Completeness4/5

The surface covers the core workflows well: querying (ask_pipeworx variants), deep research, entity resolution, entity profiles, comparisons, change feeds, claim verification, discovery/onboarding, subscriptions (list/subscribe/unsubscribe), memory (remember/recall/forget), and feedback. Minor gaps exist — there is no direct tool to fetch a returned pipeworx:// citation URI, and memory lacks an explicit update operation — but agents can work around these.

Resources