Skip to main content
Glama

Amplitude

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Scan Dependency

scan_dependency
Read-onlyIdempotent

Composite "should I add this npm package to my project" check in ONE call — fans out across deps.dev (license + advisories + version history) and bundlephobia (gzipped/minified bundle size, dependency count, ESM/tree-shake support). Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me". Returns a summary block (is_latest, license, published_at, advisory_count, bundle_kb_min, bundle_kb_gz, dependency_count, has_esm, tree_shakeable), per-advisory detail, links, and a list of recent alternative versions. NPM ecosystem only in v1; PyPI / Maven / Cargo / Go fall under deps.dev:version directly. Partial failures degrade gracefully — bundlephobia's first measurement on a new version can take 5-30s; sources_failed will list it if it times out, the rest still returns.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
packageYesnpm package name. Scoped packages (e.g. "@types/node") are accepted.
versionNoSpecific version to check (e.g., "18.3.1"). Defaults to the latest published version when omitted.

Schema Changelog

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

  1. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive hints. The description adds significant behavioral context: partial failures degrade gracefully, bundlephobia's first measurement can take 5–30 seconds, and sources_failed lists timeouts. It also describes the return structure without needing an output schema.

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 front-loaded with the core purpose and usage, then covers return details, constraints, and performance. It is coherent but slightly verbose; a minor trim could improve conciseness without losing clarity.

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 the tool's complexity (composite check with two external sources) and no output schema, the description fully explains what is returned: summary block, per-advisory detail, links, and alternative versions. It also covers edge cases like partial failures and timing, making it complete for the agent.

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. The description adds context about npm package names (scoped accepted) and version defaults (latest), but these are also in the schema. It does not add meaningful semantic nuances beyond the schema, so baseline 3 is appropriate.

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 starts with a clear composite purpose: 'should I add this npm package to my project' check in one call, specifying the verb (scan), resource (dependency), and the two data sources (deps.dev and bundlephobia). It distinguishes from siblings by focusing on npm packages and the specific question it answers.

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?

Explicitly states when to use: 'whenever an agent asks 'is X safe / popular / small' or 'what does adding lodash cost me''. Also notes limitations: 'NPM ecosystem only in v1; PyPI / Maven / Cargo / Go fall under deps.dev:version directly', providing clear exclusion guidance.

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

All Amplitude 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta (currently identical), ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all answer natural-language questions over the same underlying data sources. ai_visibility_check and scan_competitor_ai_presence also overlap as single vs. comparative variants. The detailed descriptions help, but the boundaries between the query/research tools remain genuinely ambiguous for an agent.

Naming Consistency2/5

No consistent global naming convention. There are prefix families (amp_*, pipeworx_*, polymarket_*) but within them the structure varies (amp_get_events vs amp_user_search; ask_pipeworx vs polymarket_fill_risk), and many tools are bare verbs or noun phrases (remember, recall, forget, bet_research, search_within, recent_alerts). The mix of verb-first and noun-first names with irregular prefixes makes predicting tool names unreliable.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is too many for the server's nominal purpose: only 5 of them (amp_*) relate to Amplitude analytics, while the other 31 form a sprawling all-in-one data/research/prediction-market platform. Even accepting that broader scope, many tools could be consolidated (ask_pipeworx_beta duplicates ask_pipeworx, several polymarket tools are specialized but still numerous), making the count feel padded rather than focused.

Completeness3/5

The Pipeworx side is thorough: lookups, grounded verification, deep research, entity profiles, comparisons, subscriptions, and memory cover most of that domain well. However, the Amplitude analytics side is thin — it only queries events, active users, retention, and user activity, with no way to manage projects, cohorts, event definitions, or user properties. There is also no general web search tool and no direct database/SQL exploration, leaving notable gaps for the advertised all-in-one positioning.

Resources