Skip to main content
Glama

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint), the description discloses graceful partial failures and potential delays (5-30s for bundlephobia first measurement), adding critical behavioral 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 somewhat lengthy but efficient, front-loading the composite nature and fans-out. Every sentence contributes essential information, though minor trimming might be possible.

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 complexity (multiple data sources, no output schema), the description fully covers purpose, return fields, behavior (delays, partial failures), ecosystem boundaries, and parameter details, making it complete.

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 clear descriptions. The description adds value by explaining defaults (version defaults to latest) and acceptance of scoped packages, though it does not significantly expand 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 the tool's purpose as a composite check for npm packages, fans out across deps.dev and bundlephobia, and returns a detailed summary. It distinguishes from siblings by specifying the npm ecosystem focus.

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 the tool (e.g., 'is X safe / popular / small') and provides guidance on alternatives (PyPI, Maven, etc. fall under deps.dev:version directly).

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are nearly indistinguishable without deep reading: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded all route the same universal query, and the beta currently behaves identically. The prediction-market clister (polymarket_arbitrage, pollymarket_edges, pollymarket_edge_tracker, pollymarket_fill_risk, pollymarket_kalshi_spread) and value-estimation tools (attom_avm, attom_assessment, attom_rental_avm) have fuzzy boundaries that will cause misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

The vast majority of tools follow a consistent lower_snake-case convention with clear prefixes (attom_*, polymarket_*, pipeworx_*) and verb-noun forms (generate_llms_txt, list_subscriptions, resolve_entity). Minor deviations exist like the bare memory verbs remember, recall, forget and domain-noun names entity_profile, bet_research, but the overall pattern is predictable and readable.

Tool Count2/5

39 tools is well above the comfortable 3-15 range and signals scope creep: the server bundles real-estate, prediction markets, company research, memory, subscriptions, web utilities, and a universal data router. Many of these could be grouped into a smaller number of composite tools, as the descriptions themselves already suggest (e.g. ask_pipeworx as the default entry point).

Completeness3/5

Coverage is deep for prediction markets, company financials, and real-estate, with complete memory and subscription lifecycles (remember/recall/forgeet, subscribe/list/unsubscribe/recent_alerts). However, many advertised domains (weather, clinical trials, news, government records) are only reachable through the generic ask_pipeworx router rather than dedicated tools, and scan_dependency is npm-only, leaving obvious gaps for other ecosystems.