Skip to main content
Glama

Epss

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnlyHint, etc.), the description adds valuable behavioral details: fans out to two services, returns structured summary, per-advisory detail, links, alternatives. It also warns about bundlephobia's first measurement latency (5-30s) and graceful degradation via sources_failed. No contradiction with 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?

Three sentences, each dense with information. Front-loaded with core purpose, then usage context, then detailed output and failure behavior. No redundant text; every 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 complexity (composite tool with multiple sources, no output schema), the description fully specifies what is returned (summary fields, advisories, links, alternatives) and how failures are handled. It is sufficient for an agent to understand the tool's behavior.

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% and descriptions are clear. The description adds extra context: scoped packages accepted for 'package', and default behavior for 'version' (already in schema but reinforced). This adds marginal 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 it is a composite check for evaluating npm packages, specifying the exact resources (deps.dev and bundlephobia) and the query context. It distinguishes itself from siblings by focusing on npm ecosystem and multi-source aggregation.

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 on when to use: 'is X safe / popular / small' or 'what does adding lodash cost me'. Also clearly states limitations: NPM only in v1, with fallback for other ecosystems. This helps the agent decide appropriately.

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

All Epss 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools occupy overlapping functional space: ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx right now, and bet_research, polymarket_edges, and polymarket_arbitrage all target Polymarket opportunity detection. The detailed descriptions help, but an agent can easily select the wrong query/research or prediction-market tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names are readable snake_case and clusters like polymarket_* and pipeworx_* are internally consistent. However, the overall set mixes verb_object names (compare_entities, resolve_entity), bare verbs (forget, subscribe), and noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts, top_exploited), so there is no unifying naming convention.

Tool Count2/5

At 33 tools, the count exceeds the reasonable threshold for a focused server, and the problem is worse because the server is named Epss while most tools are Pipeworx data, Polymarket, memory, and subscription tools. A focused EPSS server would need only a handful of tools; this is a grab bag.

Completeness2/5

For the EPSS purpose implied by the server name, only get_epss and top_exploited exist, with no CVE search, historical score context, or vulnerability-management tooling. The unrelated research, memory, and prediction-market tools are individually fairly complete, but they do not fill the gap for the apparent EPSS use case.

Resources