Skip to main content
Glama

Firecrawl

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?

The annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, and non-destructive behavior, but the description adds substantial behavioral context: fan-out across two services, the 5-30s first-measurement delay, and graceful degradation via 'sources_failed'. This goes beyond the annotations and fully profiles the tool's runtime behavior.

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 moderately long but every sentence carries distinct, non-redundant information: purpose, usage triggers, output structure, ecosystem scoping, and failure handling. It is well-structured with a natural flow and no filler.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return payload (summary fields, per-advisory details, links, alternative versions), latency behavior, failure modes, and ecosystem boundaries. This is complete for a composite tool with this complexity.

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 both 'package' and 'version' fully described (including scoped package support and default-to-latest behavior). The description reinforces the purpose but adds no new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so the baseline 3 applies.

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 identifies the tool as a composite check for npm package adoption, naming the specific verb ('check') and resources (deps.dev, bundlephobia), and explicitly frames the use case ('should I add this npm package'). It distinguishes itself from sibling research tools by its focused npm ecosystem scope and output specifics.

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 "is X safe / popular / small"') and scoping rules ('NPM ecosystem only in v1; PyPI / Maven / Cargo / Go fall under deps.dev:version directly'), effectively steering the agent away from this tool for non-npm cases. It also clarifies what to expect in terms of latency and partial failures.

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

All Firecrawl 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

A4.3/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have clearly distinct purposes, but the Polymarket analytics tools (polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) have overlapping focuses that could confuse an agent if descriptions are not read carefully. Overall, detailed descriptions help differentiate them.

Naming Consistency5/5

All tool names are lowercase with underscores and follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (e.g., ask_pipeworx, bet_research, compare_entities). Prefixes like polymarket_ and pipeworx_ group related tools. No mixing of conventions or vague names.

Tool Count4/5

With 33 tools, the count is on the higher side but appropriate given the broad scope covering Pipeworx data access, Polymarket analytics, web scraping, memory, and subscriptions. Each tool has a distinct role, and the set is not overly bloated.

Completeness4/5

The tool surface covers a wide range of tasks: data queries, prediction market analysis, web scraping, memory, and subscriptions. Minor gaps exist, such as no tool for user account management or writing data back, but the core domain is well-covered with multiple specialized tools.

Resources