Skip to main content
Glama

Data Montgomery

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc.), the description adds key behaviors: it calls external services, has timing considerations (5-30s for bundlephobia), and handles partial failures gracefully with a sources_failed field.

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 largely concise and front-loaded with the main purpose, but includes several details that could be streamlined slightly without losing value.

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 thoroughly explains the return structure (summary block fields, per-advisory details, links, alternative versions) and partial failure behavior, making it complete for agent understanding.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds practical nuance: 'Scoped packages (e.g. "@types/node") are accepted', which is not in the schema description.

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 composite check for deciding whether to add an npm package, specifying it fans out across deps.dev and bundlephobia and returns a detailed summary. It distinguishes from siblings as no other tool does dependency scanning.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Explicitly says 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small"' and notes NPM-only with alternatives for other ecosystems. However, it does not name the exact alternative tool, slightly reducing clarity.

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

All Data Montgomery 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Several tools have overlapping purposes, such as ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research, which may confuse an agent about which to use for a given query. Additionally, the many prediction market tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, etc.) have subtle distinctions that could lead to misselection.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names are predominantly lowercase with underscores and follow a descriptive pattern (e.g., compare_entities, resolve_entity, scan_dependency). There are minor deviations like bet_research vs. research-related tools, but the overall pattern is consistent.

Tool Count3/5

With 33 tools, the server covers many domains (data lookup, prediction markets, Montgomery County data, npm scanning, etc.), making it feel heavy. While each tool has a clear purpose, the broad scope borders on excessive for a single server.

Completeness3/5

The server provides a wide range of data access and analysis tools, but it lacks basic CRUD operations for its data sources (e.g., no way to create or update records in Montgomery County data or Pipeworx). Some domain coverage is incomplete (e.g., no tool for listing all Pipeworx tools, only discover_tools with top-N results).

Resources