Skip to main content
Glama

Fda Devices

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?

Annotations already provide safety hints (readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive). Description adds critical behavioral context: fans out across two services, partial failures degrade gracefully, bundlephobia first measurement can take 5-30s, and sources_failed list is included. No contradictions.

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?

Single dense paragraph packs a lot of information efficiently. Could benefit from slight structuring (e.g., bullet points for return fields), but every sentence earns its place with no waste.

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?

No output schema, so description fully covers return values: summary block fields, per-advisory detail, links, alternative versions. Also explains timeout behavior and partial failure handling. Extremely comprehensive for a composite tool.

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% with descriptions for both parameters. Description adds value by clarifying scoped packages are accepted for 'package' and providing an example version format ('18.3.1') for 'version'. Reinforces defaults behavior.

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?

Description uses specific verb-resource combo ('scan dependency') and immediately explains it's a composite check for npm packages combining deps.dev and bundlephobia data. Clearly distinct from siblings like 'deep_research' or 'validate_claim'.

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 states use cases: 'is X safe / popular / small' or 'what does adding lodash cost me'. Also specifies scope (NPM ecosystem only) and that other ecosystems should use deps.dev:version directly. Lacks explicit when-not-to-use, but context is clear given sibling list.

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

All Fda Devices 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The FDA-specific tools are distinct, but they are mixed with many generic Pipeworx tools (e.g., ask_pipeworx variants, deep_research, entity_profile) that have overlapping purposes. This creates significant ambiguity for an agent trying to choose the right tool for FDA-related queries.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names follow two inconsistent patterns: FDA tools use 'fda_device_*' (consistent), while generic tools use various patterns like 'ask_pipeworx', 'deep_research', 'remember', etc. The mix of snake_case, camelCase, and descriptive phrases lacks coherence.

Tool Count2/5

With 37 tools, the count is high for what is intended as an FDA devices server. Only 6 tools are directly FDA-related; the rest are generic and dilute the purpose. The scope is mismatched, making the tool count inappropriate.

Completeness3/5

The FDA tools cover key areas: 510k search, adverse events, PMA, recalls, company profiles. However, the server is incomplete for its name because it lacks many tools that a comprehensive FDA devices server would have, and the generic tools don't fill those gaps.

Resources