Skip to main content
Glama

Odds Api

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Beyond annotations, describes graceful degradation on partial failures, timing details for bundlephobia's first measurement (5-30s), and mentions that failed sources will be listed in sources_failed. This exceeds annotation-provided hints.

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 somewhat long but efficiently packed with information: purpose, usage, return format, and edge cases. Could be broken into shorter sentences, but very informative.

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 enumerates return fields (summary block, per-advisory detail, links, alternatives). Covers scope, behavior, and failure modes completely.

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%, but description adds value by clarifying that scoped packages are accepted and that version defaults to the latest published version. This is beyond baseline.

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 it is a composite check for npm packages, listing specific aspects (license, advisories, version history, bundle info). It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by focusing on npm dependencies and mentions that other ecosystems use a different tool directly.

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 provides when to use: 'whenever an agent asks 'is X safe / popular / small' or 'what does adding lodash cost me''. Also notes NPM-only in v1 and points to alternatives for other ecosystems.

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

All Odds Api 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

Several tool clusters have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, and deep_research all route to the same 5,724 tools with only subtle behavioral differences, and bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, and polymarket_kalshi_spread heavily overlap around prediction-market opportunity discovery. entity_profile, compare_entities, and recent_changes also fan out across the same SEC/news/patent sources, making selection ambiguous for agents.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes multiple conventions: snake_case verb_noun for odds tools (get_events, list_sports), vendor-prefixed clusters (ask_pipeworx_*, pipeworx_*, polymarket_*), and a few reversed noun-verb names like bet_research. CamelCase is used in ai_visibility_check and generate_llms_txt adds another style. Only the polymarket_* and pipeworx_* families are internally consistent, but the overall pattern is chaotic.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is well beyond the typical well-scoped server, and the count feels inflated by unrelated meta-tools (suggest_questions, discover_tools, pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending, generate_llms_txt, scan_dependency, remember/recall/forget) that have nothing to do with the server's stated 'Odds Api' purpose. The actual odds surface is only ~5 tools, so the vast majority of the catalog is off-scope padding.

Completeness3/5

The core odds domain is well covered: list_sports, get_events, get_odds, get_event_odds, and get_scores form a coherent lifecycle, plus quota introspection. However, for the server's actual broad-research scope there are noticeable gaps (e.g., no direct single-filing fetch tool despite heavy SEC coverage, a lone npm-dependency tool with no surrounding ecosystem, and no historical/past-odds endpoint), and the heterogeneous domains make completeness uneven.

Resources