Skip to main content
Glama

Dev Feeds

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?

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive), the description reveals the composite fan-out architecture, potential 5-30s delays for new versions, and graceful partial failure handling (sources_failed listed). This adds critical behavioral context not captured by 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 well-structured and front-loaded with the core purpose. Every sentence adds value—explaining the composite nature, return structure, limitations, and edge cases—without redundancy or wasted words.

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 tool's complexity (composite, multiple sources, potential partial failures), the description is fully complete. It explains the return format (summary block with fields, details, links, versions), limitations (NPM only), and behavior on failure (timeout, sources_failed). No output schema is needed with this level of detail.

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 descriptions already cover both parameters comprehensively (100% coverage). The description does not add new semantic details beyond what the schema provides (e.g., parameter formats, constraints). It meets the baseline but does not enhance parameter understanding.

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, listing the sources (deps.dev and bundlephobia) and the questions it answers (e.g., 'is X safe/popular/small'). It also distinguishes itself from siblings by noting 'NPM ecosystem only' and explicitly mentioning alternatives for other package ecosystems.

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?

The description provides explicit when-to-use guidance ('Use whenever an agent asks...') and when-not-to-use ('PyPI/Maven/Cargo/Go fall under deps.dev:version directly'). It also covers partial failure behavior and timeout expectations.

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

All Dev Feeds 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
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but there is some overlap between ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and similar data query tools. However, detailed descriptions help agents differentiate.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names consistently use snake_case and a mix of verb_noun and noun_verb patterns. No camelCase is present, but some tools like 'generate_llms_txt' have embedded acronyms, which slightly reduces consistency.

Tool Count3/5

33 tools is high, but the server covers a wide range of functionalities (data lookups, prediction markets, RSS feeds, memory). Some tools could be combined, but the count is within reasonable limits for a comprehensive tool server.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers major areas like entity lookups, prediction market analysis, data retrieval, and memory management. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no RSS feed deletion tool), but overall it is quite comprehensive.

Resources