Skip to main content
Glama

Macrostrat

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The annotations already declare readOnly, openWorld, idempotent, and non-destructive, but the description adds critical behavioral context: the composite fan-out across two services, potential 5-30s latency on first measurement, graceful partial-failure handling, and the sources_failed field. This goes well beyond what annotations provide.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is dense but well-organized: it front-loads the core purpose, lists return content, specifies ecosystem scope, and discloses potential latency and failure modes. Every sentence provides necessary information without redundancy or fluff.

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?

Given the tool's complexity (composite of two services, multiple output elements, potential timeouts, ecosystem restrictions), the description is remarkably complete. It covers the return summary fields, per-advisory detail, links, alternative versions, latency behavior, and graceful degradation, all without an 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?

The input schema already documents both parameters fully (package name, optional version with default). The description does not add new parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema states, so the baseline of 3 for high schema coverage applies.

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 defines the tool as a composite check for deciding whether to add an npm package, detailing the specific data sources (deps.dev, bundlephobia) and the exact metrics involved (license, advisories, bundle size, etc.). This unambiguous verb+resource combination distinguishes it from all 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?

It explicitly states when to use the tool ('whenever an agent asks is X safe / popular / small') and provides a direct alternative for other ecosystems ('PyPI / Maven / Cargo / Go fall under deps.dev:version directly'). This offers clear usage guidance and exclusions.

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

All Macrostrat 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, e.g., geology tools vs. Polymarket tools vs. memory tools. The main ambiguity is between ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_grounded, but their descriptions clearly differentiate them (grounded vs. casual). Overall, an agent can reliably select the right tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

Names use snake_case consistently, but the structure varies: some are verb_noun (find_columns), some are noun_noun (entity_profile), some are single verbs (forget). This mix reduces predictability, though each name is still readable.

Tool Count3/5

With 29 tools, the server covers many domains (geology, finance, prediction markets, memory, subscriptions). This is a large surface for a server named 'Macrostrat', which implies a geology focus. The count feels bloated for a coherent set, though each tool individually seems justified.

Completeness4/5

The tool set is quite complete for its diverse sub-areas: geology has lookup tools, Pipeworx/Poly market has search, comparison, arbitrage, and memory/subscriptions have full CRUD. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no detailed geology unit edits), but overall coverage is strong.

Resources