Skip to main content
Glama

ureweries

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 already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable behavioral context beyond this: composite fan-out across services, potential 5-30s latency for first bundlephobia measurement, graceful partial failures, and the sources_failed field. No contradiction 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is moderately long but every sentence earns its place: purpose, use case, return fields, ecosystem limitation, and failure behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and structured logically, though slightly dense.

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 call over two external services) and no output schema, the description thoroughly covers what data is returned (summary block, per-advisory detail, links, alternative versions), the ecosystem boundary, and failure behavior. This is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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% for both parameters, including scoped package handling and version defaulting. The description reinforces these but does not add significant new semantic information about the parameters themselves. Baseline 3 is appropriate since the schema carries the burden.

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 uses a specific verb ('should I add this npm package to my project' check) with a clear resource (npm package) and scope (composite of deps.dev and bundlephobia). It clearly distinguishes itself from sibling tools by describing its unique fan-out behavior and the exact type of 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: 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me"'. It also provides an explicit alternative: 'PyPI / Maven / Cargo / Go fall under deps.dev:version directly', giving clear exclusion criteria.

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

All ureweries 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clear distinct purposes, but ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research overlap in querying Pipeworx data sources. Entity_profile and recent_changes also share some coverage. Overall, agents can differentiate, but a few pairs may cause confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names use snake_case for multi-word (e.g., ai_visibility_check) but also single-word verbs (forget, recall, remember). The pattern is not uniform: some are verb_noun, some are just noun or verb. Mixed conventions reduce predictability.

Tool Count3/5

At 33 tools, the set is on the high side for an MCP server. The server covers a broad data-query domain, which justifies many specialized tools, but the count is borderline heavy and includes several meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions). Could be streamlined without losing core functionality.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface is comprehensive for data retrieval across financial, economic, pharmaceutical, real estate, weather, and prediction markets. It includes both single-lookup and comparative tools, plus monitoring via subscriptions. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct update/delete for user memory beyond forget), but the core domain is well-covered.

Resources