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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, not destructive. Description adds composite external API calls, partial failure behavior, first measurement delay (5-30s), and return structure, providing context beyond annotations.

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 informative and well-structured, starting with purpose, usage, details, then limitations. Though lengthy, each sentence adds value. Slight room for tighter phrasing.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given no output schema, description covers returned fields (summary block, advisories, links, alternatives). Includes limitations, usage context, and behavior, making it sufficiently complete for the tool's complexity.

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%. Description adds useful details: scoped packages accepted for 'package', and 'version' defaults to latest. Adds clarity beyond the 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?

The description clearly states it is a composite check for npm packages covering license, advisories, version history, and bundle size. The verb 'scan dependency' is specific and distinct from sibling tools.

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: 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me"'. Also mentions NPM-only scope and alternative direct deps.dev usage for other ecosystems.

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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have heavily overlapping purposes: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded share the same router, with beta explicitly documented as currently identical, while discover_tools/suggest_questions and the several Polymarket analysis tools also blur together. The detailed descriptions help only after careful reading; an agent can easily misselect.

Naming Consistency2/5

Names are all snake_case, but the conventions are mixed: verb_noun (encode_geohash, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency) coexists with bare verbs (remember, forget), noun phrases (entity_profile, polymarket_arbitrage), and adjective-noun forms (recent_alerts, recent_changes). The Pipeworx family has ask_pipeworx variants but no predictable pattern across the set.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is well over the useful focused-server range, and the mismatch with the server name is stark: only 2 of 33 tools actually relate to geohashing. The remaining 31 form a sprawling data-research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription toolkit that would be heavy even as a standalone Pipeworx server.

Completeness2/5

For the geohash core, encode/decode covers the basic operation but lacks obvious utilities like neighbors, distance, or batch decoding. For the broader implicit Pipeworx surface, there is no coherent lifecycle tying the research, prediction-market, and subscription features together, and several workflows dead-end at analysis.