Skip to main content
Glama

Onedrive

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already declare safe, read-only, idempotent behavior. Description adds critical details: composite fan-out, partial failures, bundlephobia timing (5-30s), graceful degradation with sources_failed field. This goes well beyond the 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?

Well-structured, front-loading composite nature then usage then returns. Every sentence is valuable. Slightly lengthy but justified by the tool's complexity.

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, description details return fields (summary, advisories, links, alternative versions). Covers parameters, behavior, failure modes, ecosystem constraints. Complete for a complex composite tool.

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 baseline is 3. Description adds minor context: scoped packages are accepted, version defaults to latest. Does not add significant meaning beyond schema, but adequately compensates.

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's a composite check for npm packages, combining deps.dev and bundlephobia. It answers 'is X safe / popular / small' or 'what does adding lodash cost me'. This distinctly separates it from other tools like resolve_entity or validate_claim.

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 says 'Use whenever an agent asks...' and limits to NPM ecosystem, mentioning alternatives for other ecosystems. Provides concrete when-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 Onedrive 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

The set mixes near-synonymous routers (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded), overlapping discovery tools (discover_tools, suggest_questions), and several prediction-market scanners (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_edge_tracker) whose boundaries are easy to blur. The six onedrive_* tools are distinct, but they are buried in an unrelated toolkit where multiple tools appear to address the same task.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming is split across several conventions: onedrive_*, polymarket_*, and pipeworx_* form consistent clusters, but top-level tools use bare verbs (remember, recall, forget), noun phrases (entity_profile, compare_entities), and varied styles (deep_research, generate_llms_txt, validate_claim). The pattern is readable within clusters, but not predictable across the server.

Tool Count2/5

37 tools is heavy, and the vast majority have nothing to do with the server's name 'Onedrive' — only 6 of 37 target OneDrive, while 31 span Pipeworx data, Polymarket betting, memory, and web utilities. This is a sprawling multi-domain bundle rather than a focused server.

Completeness1/5

As a OneDrive server, the surface is severely incomplete: it offers read-only coverage (list, search, get, profile, shared) but no upload, create, update, move, copy, delete, or share operations, and binary Office/PDF content returns unreadable bytes. The Pipeworx tools are individually comprehensive, but they do not fill the basic lifecycle gaps for the server's apparent file-management domain.

Resources