Skip to main content
Glama

Noaa Swpc

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds behavioral context beyond the readOnly/idempotent annotations, explicitly disclosing partial failure degradation, a 5-30s timing risk on first measurement, and the sources_failed field. 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Dense, well-structured description with no filler; every sentence contributes (purpose, return fields, ecosystem scope, failure behavior). Slightly long but each sentence justifies its place.

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 no output schema, the description enumerates the summary fields, details, links, alternatives, and failure modes, making the tool's behavior and output fully predictable for a composite API call.

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% (package and version are fully documented). The description does not add parameter-level semantics beyond what the schema already provides, so it stays at the baseline of 3.

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 explicitly states the composite check purpose, names the data sources (deps.dev and bundlephobia), and scopes to npm packages. This clearly distinguishes it from sibling tools such as scan_competitor_ai_presence.

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?

Provides explicit trigger phrases ('is X safe / popular / small') and names an alternative for non-npm ecosystems ('PyPI / Maven / Cargo / Go fall under deps.dev:version directly'), giving clear when-to-use and 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 Noaa Swpc 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

B3.3/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tool clusters heavily overlap: multiple ask_pipeworx variants, five polymarket_* tools, and company-research tools (entity_profile, compare_entities, recent_changes) all have similar purposes. An agent would frequently need to read long descriptions to distinguish between them, and some boundaries remain unclear.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes verb-first styles (ask_pipeworx, list_subscriptions, subscribe) with noun-only names (kp_index, solar_wind, alerts), and disjointed prefixed families (polymarket_*, pipeworx_*). There is no uniform verb_noun or other consistent convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

38 tools is well above the typical well-scoped range, especially for a server ostensibly dedicated to NOAA space weather. The count feels bloated, with many tools unrelated to the server's stated purpose.

Completeness2/5

The server name implies space-weather coverage, and that domain has only a handful of tools (alerts, kp_index, solar_wind, etc.), leaving gaps (no proton flux, no Dst index). Meanwhile, the extensive non-space-weather tools are over-provisioned and their inclusion makes the overall surface incoherent and impossible to navigate as a complete domain.

Resources