Skip to main content
Glama

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?

Adds rich behavioral context beyond annotations: fans out across deps.dev and bundlephobia, partial failures degrade gracefully, first bundlephobia measurement can take 5-30s, sources_failed lists timeouts. Aligns with readOnlyHint and idempotentHint.

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?

Description is relatively long but every sentence adds value. Front-loaded with purpose and composite nature. Slightly verbose but efficient.

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?

Comprehensive handling of composite tool: lists return fields (summary, advisories, links, alternatives), mentions NPM-only, partial failures, and bundlephobia timing. No gaps given no output schema.

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. Description adds minimal extra for parameters (e.g., scoped packages accepted, version defaults to latest) but these are already in schema descriptions.

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 clearly states it's a composite check for npm packages covering license, advisories, bundle size, and more. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying NPM-only in v1 and referencing other ecosystems under deps.dev:version directly.

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?

Explicitly says 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me"' and notes limitations like NPM-only and potential bundlephobia timeouts.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Many tools have clearly distinct purposes, but research entry points overlap heavily (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research) and the beta tool currently behaves identically to the stable version. Polymarket tools and AI visibility tools also create multiple near-overlapping options that require careful reading to disambiguate.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names follow snake_case and are readable, but there is no consistent pattern: some are verb-first (ask_, resolve_, validate_, scan_), some noun-first (entity_profile, pipeworx_trending, polymarket_edges), and some are bare nouns (distance, destination). This mixed convention makes the tool set feel less predictable than it should.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is excessive for a server named Geodistance, and the actual purpose is a sprawling data-research and prediction-market toolkit with a few geospatial helpers. The set would be better split into focused servers; as-is it feels bloated and poorly scoped.

Completeness3/5

The data-research surface is quite complete (discovery, lookup, grounded answers, comparisons, subscriptions, memory, feedback), and geodistance has core operations like distance, destination, and coordinate conversion. However, the geographic functionality is thin and the overall grab-bag composition makes it hard to assess completeness against any single coherent domain; obvious geospatial features like geocoding, routing, or area calculations are absent.