Skip to main content
Glama

Jpl Ssd

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive behavior. The description adds important behavioral details: partial failure handling (sources_failed list), bundlephobia timing (5-30s on first measurement), and graceful degradation. 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?

The description is fairly dense but well-organized, with clear sections and key details. A slight reduction in length could improve conciseness, but no redundant wording is present.

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?

Despite lacking an output schema, the description fully explains the return structure (summary block, per-advisory detail, links, alternative versions) and failure behavior. For a complex tool with two parameters, this is highly complete.

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 the baseline is 3. The description adds minor context (scoped packages accepted, version defaults to latest), but does not significantly enhance understanding beyond what the schema already provides.

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 evaluating an npm package before adding it to a project, covering license, advisories, version history, and bundle size. It distinguishes itself from siblings by specifying the npm ecosystem and mentioning fallback to deps.dev:version 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?

Explicitly provides usage context: 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me"'. Also clarifies ecosystem scope and fallback behavior for non-npm packages.

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

All Jpl Ssd 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Multiple tools overlap in purpose, especially the ask_pipeworx variants and the polymarket_* tools. An agent would struggle to distinguish between similar functions, increasing the risk of selecting the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names use inconsistent conventions: some are snake_case (close_approaches), some are verb_noun (generate_llms_txt), and others mix styles (ask_pipeworx vs. deep_research). No clear pattern is maintained across the set.

Tool Count1/5

At 35 tools, the server is bloated and unfocused. The majority of tools are unrelated to the 'Jpl Ssd' domain, which only has 4 relevant tools. The count is far too high for the stated purpose.

Completeness2/5

The JPL SSD coverage is minimal (only 4 tools), missing key functionalities like detailed object queries or bulk downloads. The remaining tools cover unrelated domains, so the surface is both incomplete for its primary domain and cluttered with off-topic tools.

Resources