Skip to main content
Glama

Data Austin

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description details behavioral traits beyond annotations: it fans out across deps.dev and bundlephobia, bundlephobia's first measurement may take 5-30s, partial failures degrade gracefully with sources_failed listed. Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive. No contradiction.

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 every sentence provides essential information. It is front-loaded with the main purpose and structured clearly, though slightly verbose. Could be trimmed slightly but not unnecessarily.

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?

Despite no output schema, the description fully explains the return structure (summary block, advisories, links, alternative versions) and covers edge cases like partial failures and timing. Complete for a composite tool.

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 descriptions for both parameters. The description adds extra context: scoped packages are accepted for 'package' and version defaults to latest when omitted, which adds value 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 covering license, advisories, version history, and bundle size. It explicitly answers the question 'should I add this npm package?' and distinguishes itself from siblings by noting NPM ecosystem only in v1.

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?

Explicit guidance is provided: use when an agent asks about safety, popularity, or size of an npm package. It also states what not to use (other ecosystems like PyPI, Maven are handled by deps.dev directly) and explains partial failures.

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

All Data Austin 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

A4/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple ask_pipeworx variants (beta, grounded) and several prediction market tools (arbitrage, edges, fill risk, spread). While descriptions help differentiate them, the abundance of similar tools makes it easy for an agent to misselect.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names are a mix of snake_case with inconsistent prefixes: some use 'ask_', 'polymarket_', 'austin_', while others are isolated verbs (forget, remember) or compound nouns (entity_profile). The pattern is not uniform but still readable.

Tool Count3/5

With 34 tools, the server is heavy. Although each tool seems justified for its niche, the set could be consolidated (e.g., merging ask_pipeworx variants) to reduce clutter. The count feels slightly excessive for the scope.

Completeness4/5

The server covers a broad range of domains: Austin open data, pipeworx data, prediction markets, memory management, and subscriptions. Core workflows are well-supported, with only minor gaps like a missing cross-source search tool.

Resources