Skip to main content
Glama

North Carolina DMV

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Discloses that it fans out across two external services, mentions potential partial failures, and warns that bundlephobia's first measurement can take 5-30s. These are beyond what annotations (readOnlyHint, openWorldHint, idempotentHint) provide. No contradiction.

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 yet efficient, front-loading the core purpose, then providing usage guidance, behavioral notes, and limitations in a logical flow. No 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 absence of an output schema, the description thoroughly explains the return value (summary block, advisory detail, links, alternative versions). Covers edge cases like partial failures and scoped packages, making it self-contained.

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 descriptions already present. The description adds extra context: scoped packages accepted for 'package' and default behavior for 'version'. This enhances understanding beyond schema.

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 composite nature of the tool, combining deps.dev and bundlephobia data, and defines its purpose: assessing an npm package for safety, popularity, and size. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools, which are unrelated.

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 guidance on when to use: when an agent asks 'is X safe / popular / small' or 'what does adding lodash cost me'. Also specifies NPM ecosystem only in v1 and points to deps.dev:version directly for other ecosystems, providing clear alternatives.

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

All North Carolina DMV 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

The set contains several families with blurred boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all answer questions over the same routed data, and polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_arbitrage, and polymarket_fill_risk overlap heavily. The two NC DMV tools are clear, but an agent could easily pick the wrong member of these near-duplicate families despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most names are readable snake_case and several families share prefixes (nc_dmv_, ask_pipeworx, polymarket_), but the set mixes verb phrases (compare_entities, search_within), noun phrases (entity_profile, recent_alerts), and bare verbs (remember, forget). The convention is not unified, though individual clusters are internally consistent.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is already heavy, but the bigger problem is that only two tools (nc_dmv_offices, nc_dmv_wait_times) belong to the stated North Carolina DMV domain; the other 31 are an unrelated general-purpose data and research toolkit. The count is not scoped to the server's apparent purpose.

Completeness1/5

For a North Carolina DMV surface, the tool set is severely incomplete: it offers office lookup and live wait times but nothing for appointments, license renewal, vehicle registration, fees, forms, or eligibility. Agents attempting real DMV tasks would hit dead ends immediately.

Resources