Skip to main content
Glama

Data Centrevaldeloire

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Description goes beyond annotations by detailing partial failure behavior (bundlephobia timeout of 5-30s, sources_failed list), ecosystem limitation (NPM only in v1), and graceful degradation. This adds significant value beyond the readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, and idempotentHint annotations.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

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

The description is a single dense paragraph that efficiently covers purpose, sources, output fields, limitations, and edge cases. Every sentence is valuable, and it is well front-loaded with the core composite check intent.

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 lists all returned fields (summary block, per-advisory details, links, alternative versions, sources_failed). It also covers timeout behavior and ecosystem scope, making it fully contextual for an 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 coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds that 'version' defaults to latest and scoped packages are accepted, but this is minimal additional guidance beyond the schema descriptions.

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 that this tool is a composite check for evaluating npm packages, aggregating license, advisory, and size data from deps.dev and bundlephobia. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools like 'scan_competitor_ai_presence' by focusing on npm dependencies and providing a unified risk/size assessment.

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 says when to use: 'whenever an agent asks 'is X safe / popular / small' or 'what does adding lodash cost me''. Also provides an alternative: for other ecosystems like PyPI, use 'deps.dev:version directly'. This gives clear usage context and exclusion criteria.

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

All Data Centrevaldeloire 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
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools have overlapping boundaries, especially ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim, all of which route through the same underlying source catalog. The beta variant is explicitly identical to the stable router right now, which forces agents to pick between tools that currently do the same thing. Many of the polymarket tools are also close enough that an agent must read long descriptions carefully to avoid mis-selection.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set is readable and mostly snake_case, but the naming conventions are mixed: some tools use verb_noun (search_datasets, compare_entities, validate_claim), some are noun-like (entity_profile, dataset_info, bet_research), and some use product prefixes (pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges). There is no single consistent pattern, though related clusters are internally recognizable.

Tool Count2/5

Thirty-four tools is above the heavy threshold, and the apparent server purpose from the name is a regional open-data portal, which only needs the three dataset tools. The remaining tools are a sprawling Pipeworx research assistant covering prediction markets, npm dependencies, AI visibility, memory, subscriptions, and feedback, making the set feel overstuffed and poorly scoped for the stated server.

Completeness4/5

Within the broad data/research scope the coverage is quite deep: discovery, querying, grounded verification, entity profiling, comparisons, monitoring, subscriptions, memory, and prediction-market analysis all have dedicated tools. The Centre-Val de Loire core is adequately covered by search_datasets, dataset_info, and query, though a raw download or full-catalog listing endpoint is missing. The real weakness is not missing lifecycle steps but unclear boundaries between overlapping meta-tools.

Resources