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?

Discloses multi-source fan-out, return fields, per-advisory detail, and performance caveat (5-30s for bundlephobia first measurement). Annotations already indicate readOnly, idempotent, non-destructive; description adds significant context beyond that.

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 front-loaded with core purpose, but is somewhat verbose. Each sentence adds value, but could be slightly more concise.

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 coverage of return values (summary, per-advisory, links, alternatives), ecosystem restriction, and graceful degradation. No output schema, but description fully compensates.

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 description coverage is 100% (both parameters described). Description adds minimal extra meaning beyond the schema (e.g., default version behavior). Baseline of 3 is appropriate.

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?

Clearly states the tool performs a composite check for npm packages, covering license, advisories, version history, and bundle size. Distinguishes from siblings by specifying NPM-only scope and mentioning alternatives 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 says 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small"', and provides when-not-to-use: other ecosystems fall under deps.dev:version directly. Also sets expectations for partial failures.

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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The four legislation tools are clearly distinct, but the set as a whole is confusing: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly identical right now, and entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes, validate_claim, and ask_pipeworx_grounded have overlapping research/verification purposes. The 31 non-legislation tools also create constant ambiguity about which tool to pick for a UK law question.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are uniformly lowercase snake_case and mostly follow recognizable verb-led or prefixed patterns (get_legislation, search_legislation, ask_pipeworx, polymarket_*). Minor deviations like entity_profile, bet_research, and recent_changes are noun-phrase style rather than verb_noun, but there is no camelCase mixing or chaotic convention.

Tool Count1/5

A server named 'Legislation Uk' has 35 tools, only 4 of which relate to UK legislation; the rest are Pipeworx data-platform, prediction-market, memory, and subscription utilities. This is an extreme mismatch between the tool count and the server's apparent purpose.

Completeness4/5

The UK legislation portion covers the core read workflow well: search_legislation finds a statute, get_legislation returns metadata, and get_legislation_text/get_legislation_section provide full or section-level text with versioning. Minor gaps exist, such as no dedicated amendment-history or cross-version diff tool, but there are no dead ends for typical lookups.