Skip to main content
Glama

F1

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?

The description adds behavioral context beyond annotations: explains partial failures, graceful degradation, and that bundlephobia's first measurement can take 5-30 seconds. Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, and non-destructive, and the description aligns with these.

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 well-structured and front-loaded with a clear summary, but it is somewhat lengthy. Every sentence adds value, but minor trimming could improve conciseness without losing information.

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 fully explains return values (summary block with specific fields, per-advisory detail, links, alternative versions) and handles edge cases like partial failures and sources_failed. Complete for a composite tool with multiple data sources.

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% with descriptive parameter descriptions. The tool description does not add additional meaning beyond what the schema already provides for package and version. Baseline score of 3 is appropriate.

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 is a composite check for npm packages using deps.dev and bundlephobia, with a specific verb-resource combination. It distinguishes from sibling tools like validate_claim or deep_research by focusing on 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 Guidelines5/5

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

The description explicitly says when to use it (questions about safety/popularity/size) and when not to use it (other ecosystems like PyPI, Maven, Cargo, Go, which fall under different tools). It also provides context on partial failures and timing.

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

All F1 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have detailed 'use when' guidance and the polymarket/entity clusters are distinguishable, but ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical, and ask_pipeworx/ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research sit close together. Many other tools (ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence, bet_research vs polymarket_edges) require careful reading to keep separate.

Naming Consistency3/5

Consistent snake_case and recognizable subfamilies (ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, get_*) keep names readable. However the overall set mixes verb_noun (get_schedule, resolve_entity), bare verbs (remember, forget), noun phrases (recent_alerts, pipeworx_trending), and compound noun names (bet_research, polymarket_fill_risk), so there is no single predictable convention.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is well over the 25+ threshold and spans many unrelated concerns: F1 data, universal data lookup, prediction markets, subscriptions, memory, npm scanning, and AI visibility. While a broad data platform can justify a large surface, the mix of one-off and meta tools makes this feel bloated rather than well-scoped.

Completeness2/5

For a server named F1 the surface is thin: it covers schedule, driver profiles, race results, and driver standings but lacks constructor standings, qualifying, team/circuit data, and a driver list. The surrounding Pipeworx tools provide depth in other domains, but they do not fill the F1-specific gaps.

Resources