Skip to main content
Glama

Complex Portal

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. First observed

TDQS

A4.4/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already mark read-only, open-world, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds valuable behavioral context: partial failures degrade gracefully, bundlephobia first measurement can take 5-30s, and sources_failed will list timeouts. This goes beyond annotations, though could be more detailed on failure modes.

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 detailed but well-structured: composite nature first, usage, behavior, ecosystem limits, failure handling. Every sentence adds value, though length could be slightly trimmed for brevity.

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?

With no output schema, the description explains return fields (summary block, per-advisory, links, alternatives). It covers ecosystem scope, partial failure behavior, and expected outputs. For a 2-param tool with no nested objects, this is complete.

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 coverage is 100%, and both parameters have descriptions. The description adds an example version format ('18.3.1') and confirms default behavior. This provides marginal additional meaning beyond the schema; baseline of 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 clearly states it is a composite check for npm packages covering license, advisories, version history, and bundle metrics. It uses specific verbs ('scan', 'check') and resource ('npm package'), and distinguishes from potential alternatives by specifying NPM-only scope.

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 tells when to use: when agent asks about safety, popularity, size, or cost of npm package. Also notes NPM-only in v1 and alternatives for other ecosystems (PyPI, Maven, etc.), providing clear guidance on exclusion.

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

All Complex Portal 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

Several tools serve nearly identical purposes: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently functionally identical, and polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and bet_research all hunt prediction-market opportunities with overlapping outputs. The verbose descriptions help, but an agent can easily call the wrong one.

Naming Consistency4/5

All 33 names use lowercase snake_case with descriptive, mostly verb-first words (ask_, compare_, discover_, search_), and domain suites are consistently prefixed (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*). Minor deviations like entity_profile or recent_changes (noun/adjective-first) keep it from a perfect 5.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well into the 'too many' range, especially for a server nominally about the narrow Complex Portal database. Many tools (memory, feedback, subscriptions, trending) are generic meta-utilities unrelated to the stated purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the stated 'Complex Portal' domain, only search_complexes and get_complex exist, with no organism-scoped search, batch access, or additional lifecycle coverage, making the surface severely incomplete for that name. The actual Pipeworx platform is broadly covered, but the server-name mismatch makes the set feel incomplete for its advertised purpose.

Resources