Skip to main content
Glama

Jina Reader

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint. Description adds valuable behavioral context: partial failures degrade gracefully, bundlephobia's first measurement delay, and the sources_failed field. No contradiction with 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 detailed and front-loaded with purpose, but slightly long (4 sentences). Every sentence adds value, so minor deduction for brevity.

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?

Tool is complex (composite, multiple sources). Description covers inputs, outputs (summary block), behavior (partial failures), ecosystem scope. No output schema, so description adequately explains return format.

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 parameter descriptions. Description adds context about default version behavior and scoped packages, but schema already covers basic info. Baseline 3, extra value for default behavior explanation.

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's a composite check for 'should I add this npm package', covering license, advisories, version history, and bundle size. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying NPM ecosystem only, with other ecosystems falling under deps.dev:version.

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"'. Also mentions what it's NOT for (other ecosystems) and provides alternatives.

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

All Jina Reader 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have clearly distinct roles, but there is notable overlap in the ask_pipeworx family (stable, beta, grounded, deep_research), and ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly described as currently identical to ask_pipeworx. discover_tools and suggest_questions also both serve as meta-guidance, creating some selection ambiguity. The very detailed descriptions help, but they do not fully remove the risk of misselection.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set mixes verb-first names like compare_entities and validate_claim with noun-first names like entity_profile and polymarket_edges, along with prefix families (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*, ask_pipeworx_*) and bare verbs like forget and search. Everything is snake_case and readable, but there is no single predictable convention across the whole surface.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools for a server labeled 'Jina Reader' is a sprawling surface spanning data routing, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions, and web reading. Even if each tool is individually focused, the count and combined scope feel oversized relative to the server name and the rubric's guidance for well-scoped servers.

Completeness4/5

Each sub-domain has good lifecycle coverage: memory (remember/recall/forget), subscriptions (subscribe/unsubscribe/list_subscriptions/recent_alerts), entity research (resolve_entity/entity_profile/compare_entities/recent_changes/validate_claim), and Polymarket analysis (edges/arbitrage/fill_risk/kalshi_spread). There are minor gaps like no order execution or simple page summarization, but those appear intentionally out of scope, leaving the surface largely complete.

Resources