Skip to main content
Glama

Oecd

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already declare readOnlyHint and idempotentHint, but the description adds important behavioral details: partial failures degrade gracefully, bundlephobia first measurement can take 5-30s, and sources_failed lists timeouts. No contradictions 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.

Conciseness4/5

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

The description is relatively long but well-structured, with a clear opening summary followed by details. Every sentence adds value, though it could be slightly more concise. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Completeness4/5

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the complexity (multiple APIs, partial failures) and no output schema, the description is quite complete. It explains the return structure (summary block, per-advisory detail, links, alternative versions) and edge cases like timeouts. Missing only a note on rate limits or authentication, but overall sufficient.

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 covers 100% of parameters, but the description adds context beyond the schema: package accepts scoped packages, version defaults to latest. This helps the agent understand validation rules and defaults.

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 performs a composite check on npm packages across deps.dev and bundlephobia, answering questions about safety, popularity, and size. It distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying NPM-only scope and mentioning alternative tools for other ecosystems.

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?

The description explicitly provides when to use the tool ('whenever an agent asks is X safe / popular / small') and what not to use it for (other ecosystems like PyPI, Maven, etc.). It also covers partial failure behavior and timeout expectations.

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

All Oecd 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several near-duplicate lookup and prediction-market tools make selection ambiguous: ask_pipeworx_beta deliberately mirrors ask_pipeworx, and the five polymarket_* tools plus bet_research all target the same general 'should I bet / where is the edge' use case. The descriptions are detailed, but at the set level an agent must read extensive disambiguation essays to avoid picking the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency3/5

The set is uniformly snake_case, and subfamilies like ask_pipeworx*, polymarket_*, and subscribe/unsubscribe are internally consistent. However, conventions vary widely: verb_noun (fetch_dataset, validate_claim), noun phrases (entity_profile, bet_research), bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), and prefix-branded meta tools (pipeworx_feedback, pipeworx_trending) all coexist without a single predictable pattern.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools for a server nominally called 'Oecd' vastly exceeds the scope implied by the name and crosses the 25+ too-many threshold. Many tools belong to unrelated domains such as Polymarket arbitrage, npm dependency scanning, llms.txt generation, and AI visibility audits, making the set feel like a broad dumping ground rather than a focused tool server.

Completeness4/5

Within its sprawling domains the tool surface is fairly complete: lookup, grounded verification, deep research, entity resolution/profile/comparison, memory, subscriptions, alerts, and OECD dataflow search/list/fetch are all represented. There are minor gaps such as lack of direct OECD metadata descriptions or deeper navigation of the 5,708 underlying tools, but most workflows can be completed without dead ends.

Resources