Skip to main content
Glama

Dblp

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, nondestructive behavior. The description adds critical details: partial failures degrade gracefully, bundlephobia first measurement can take 5-30s, sources_failed lists timeouts. 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 dense but well-structured, front-loading the purpose and then detailing behavior and return structure. Could be slightly more concise but each sentence earns its place.

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 composite nature and no output schema, the description thoroughly explains what is returned: summary block, per-advisory detail, links, alternative versions, and failure handling. Complete for agent decision-making.

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. The description adds useful nuances: scoped packages accepted for 'package', and version defaults to latest. This goes beyond the 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: a composite 'should I add this npm package' check combining deps.dev and bundlephobia data. It uses specific verbs and distinguishes by specifying NPM only in v1, contrasting with siblings.

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?

Provides explicit when-to-use guidance: 'whenever an agent asks is X safe / popular / small...'. Also warns about non-NPM packages. However, lacks direct comparison with sibling tools.

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

All Dblp 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
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools overlap in general purpose—ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all retrieve factual data—though their descriptions draw clear mode distinctions. The Polymarket family is similarly dense but each member has a distinct role. An agent must read carefully to pick the right one, but the boundaries are mostly decipherable.

Naming Consistency4/5

Tool names overwhelmingly follow snake_case verb_noun or domain_noun patterns (search_publications, resolve_entity, polymarket_edges, ask_pipeworx). Minor exceptions like the bare verbs recall and forget break the pattern slightly, and mixed prefixes (pipeworx_, ask_, search_) are still predictable.

Tool Count2/5

At 34 tools, the set is heavy, but the deeper problem is scope mismatch: the server is named Dblp yet only 3 of 34 tools (search_authors, search_publications, search_venues) relate to DBLP. The remaining 31 tools form a broad general-purpose data platform that dwarfs and obscures the apparent purpose.

Completeness2/5

For a DBLP server, the surface is minimal: only search operations exist, with no record fetch-by-id, citation metrics, or author profile detail beyond what search returns. The bulk of the toolset addresses unrelated domains, leaving the actual DBLP workflow thin and incomplete.

Resources