Skip to main content
Glama

geo

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description discloses composite fan-out, partial failure behavior, timing ('bundlephobia's first measurement... can take 5-30s'), and the sources_failed field. These details go well beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, which already establish safety.

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 long but every sentence carries crucial information: purpose, use cases, return shape, ecosystem boundary, and failure behavior. It is front-loaded with the core purpose and avoids redundancy.

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?

With no output schema, the description fully enumerates returned fields (is_latest, license, published_at, etc.) and explains degradation. It also covers the only major limitation (npm-only in v1). This is complete for an agent to select and invoke the tool.

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%, so baseline is 3. The description adds little beyond the schema: it reinforces that package is an npm package but does not elaborate on version semantics already covered. No further parameter-level information is needed.

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 a specific composite action: a 'should I add this npm package to my project' check combining deps.dev and bundlephobia. It identifies exact resources and clearly distinguishes itself from a direct deps.dev version check for other 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?

Explicit guidance is given: 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small"' and for npm only. It also states when not to use it: 'PyPI / Maven / Cargo / Go fall under deps.dev:version directly', naming the alternative.

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

All geo 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools serve overlapping purposes, especially ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta (explicitly identical) and ask_pipeworx_grounded/deep_research/validate_claim for fact retrieval. Even with detailed descriptions, an agent could easily misselect among data-query tools or among the five Polymarket analysis tools.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names mix verb-first (ask_pipeworx, compare_entities), noun-first (polymarket_edges, entity_profile), and single-word verbs (geocode, forget), with no strict verb_noun pattern. However, all names are snake_case and mostly descriptive, so the inconsistency is moderate.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is far beyond the typical well-scoped range of 3-15, and the feature set spans research, memory, subscriptions, prediction markets, and geo utilities. Many tools are meta-tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions) that could be consolidated, making the surface feel bloated.

Completeness4/5

For the apparently broad domain of data research and prediction markets, the toolset covers most needs with parallel research, grounding, claim verification, memory, and subscription lifecycle. Minor gaps exist—like a direct way to fetch arbitrary raw data or a unified list of all tools—but agents can generally work around them.

Resources