Skip to main content
Glama

Rubygems

by io.github.pipeworx-io

Get Reverse Dependencies

get_reverse_dependencies
Read-onlyIdempotent

List gems that depend on this gem. Useful for understanding ecosystem impact ("what depends on Rack?") or risk surface ("how many gems would break if this one had a vulnerability?"). API caps at 50 names per request.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
nameYesGem name (e.g., "rack")

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
hintNoError message when gem not found
nameYesGem name
countNoTotal number of gems that depend on this one
foundYesWhether the gem was found
has_moreNoWhether there are more than 50 dependents
dependentsNoNames of gems depending on this one (up to 50)

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. First observed

TDQS

A4.3/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Annotations already indicate idempotent, read-only, and non-destructive behavior. The description adds a key behavioral trait: the API caps at 50 names per request, which is 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.

Conciseness5/5

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

Three sentences with no wasted words. Use cases are front-loaded, and the limit is stated at the end. Very concise and well-structured.

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 presence of an output schema, the description does not need to explain return values. It covers purpose, usage context, and a practical limitation, making it complete for a simple list 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%, and the schema already describes the single required parameter 'name' with an example. The description does not add additional meaning or constraints beyond the 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 tool lists gems that depend on a given gem, using a specific verb (list) and resource (gems). It distinguishes from sibling 'get_dependencies' by focusing on reverse dependencies.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Usage Guidelines4/5

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description provides two concrete use cases (ecosystem impact, risk surface) and mentions the API cap of 50 names per request. However, it does not explicitly say when not to use it or name alternatives.

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

All Rubygems 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

B3.4/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes (ask_pipeworx vs ask_pipeworx_beta are currently identical; ai_visibility_check vs scan_competitor_ai_presence; discover_tools vs suggest_questions; validate_claim vs ask_pipeworx_grounded; multiple polymarket tools). The wide mix of unrelated domains (RubyGems, Pipeworx data, memory, subscriptions) makes it hard for an agent to know which tool to pick.

Naming Consistency2/5

All tools use snake_case, but there is no consistent verb_noun pattern. Names include bare verbs (remember, recall, forget, subscribe), nouns (polymarket_edges, pipeworx_feedback), noun-first composites (ai_visibility_check, bet_research), and brand names (ask_pipeworx). The 'pipeworx_' prefix appears on only a few tools, adding inconsistency.

Tool Count2/5

36 tools is excessive for a server named Rubygems, especially since only 5 tools (search_gems, get_gem, get_versions, get_dependencies, get_reverse_dependencies) actually relate to RubyGems. The rest cover unrelated domains, making the count feel bloated and unfocused.

Completeness2/5

The RubyGems cluster is arguably complete for basic lookups (search, metadata, versions, dependencies, reverse dependencies), but it is buried among 31 unrelated tools that have no coherent domain. The server fails to fully cover either RubyGems (no way to browse all gems, no yanked versions, no gem download/content) or any other single purpose, leaving the surface incomplete and inconsistent.

Resources