Skip to main content
Glama

Mojang

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. Added

TDQS

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

The description goes well beyond annotations by disclosing service fan-out, partial failure behavior ('sources_failed will list it if it times out, the rest still returns'), timing caveats ('first measurement on a new version can take 5-30s'), and ecosystem limitations. Annotations already declare readOnly/idempotent, and the description reinforces with operational details.

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 dense but well-organized: purpose first, then usage, then output, then caveats. Every sentence adds value, though it could be broken into shorter sentences for easier scanning. The front-loaded core purpose earns high marks.

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 no output schema, the description thoroughly covers return values (summary block fields, per-advisory links, alternative versions), failure modes, and performance caveats. It also addresses ecosystem boundaries and fallback routing, making it self-sufficient for an agent.

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 does not add much beyond the schema: it mentions 'package' is an npm package name and 'version' defaults to latest, both already in the schema. No additional semantic depth is provided for parameters.

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 the tool's purpose with a specific verb phrase: 'Composite "should I add this npm package to my project" check in ONE call'. It identifies the resources (deps.dev and bundlephobia) and the output (summary block, advisories, links, alternative versions), making it distinct from any sibling tool.

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 usage conditions are provided: 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me"'. It also excludes non-NPM ecosystems ('NPM ecosystem only in v1; PyPI / Maven / Cargo / Go fall under deps.dev:version directly'), giving clear when-to-use vs. when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All Mojang 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

A3.7/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are currently described as functionally identical, creating a clear misselection risk, and several query/answer tools (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, entity_profile, compare_entities) have overlapping boundaries. The Polymarket tools also blur into each other, so despite verbose descriptions, an agent can easily route a request to the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

All names are snake_case and readable, but the conventions are mixed: verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity), noun_noun (entity_profile, bet_research), bare verbs (remember, recall, forget, profile), and prefix families with inconsistent ordering (ask_pipeworx vs pipeworx_feedback, polymarket_edges vs polymarket_kalshi_spread). This is not chaotic, but there is no single predictable naming pattern.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is well past the 25+ threshold for a heavy surface, and the server name 'Mojang' implies a narrow Minecraft API scope while only 5 tools relate to Minecraft. The rest belong to a broad data-research, prediction-market, and memory platform, making the tool count feel inflated and mis-scoped for the server's stated identity.

Completeness2/5

For the implied Minecraft/Mojang domain, there are obvious gaps such as no authentication, skin/name mutation, or broader account endpoints, so that surface is thin. Meanwhile, the Pipeworx data side is fairly complete, but because two unrelated domains are jammed into one server, neither domain is covered in a coherent, trustworthy way.

Resources