Skip to main content
Glama

Schrodingers Boolean

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?

Annotations already provide readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, etc. Description adds critical details beyond: partial failures degrade gracefully, bundlephobia's 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 a dense single paragraph but contains no filler. Every sentence adds value, though it could benefit from bullet points for readability. However, it remains clear and efficient.

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?

For a composite tool with 2 parameters and no output schema, the description fully explains inputs, behavior (about alternatives and fallbacks), and output structure (summary block, per-advisory detail, links, alternatives). Partial failure handling is clearly described.

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% (both parameters described). Description adds value by explaining that 'version' defaults to latest and that scoped packages are accepted, providing extra context 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 uses specific verbs ('composite check', 'fans out') and clearly states the resource (npm package) and the question the tool answers. It distinguishes from sibling tools by explicitly limiting ecosystem to NPM v1 and mentioning fallback for others.

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 states when to use: 'whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me"'. Also clearly excludes non-NPM ecosystems, directing to alternative tool deps.dev:version.

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

All Schrodingers Boolean 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

A4.1/5.0
Disambiguation4/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, especially within the Polymarket and data query groups. However, the three ask_pipeworx variants (ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded) and the overlap between deep_research and ask_pipeworx for broader questions could cause minor confusion.

Naming Consistency3/5

Tool names follow some consistent prefixes (ask_pipeworx, polymarket_, scan_, recent_) but overall mix verb_noun, noun phrases, and standalone verbs (forget, recall, remember). This inconsistency reduces predictability, though the patterns are still readable.

Tool Count3/5

32 tools is high but justifiable given the server's dual role as a Pipeworx data gateway and Polymarket analysis suite. Each tool serves a distinct function in the workflow, but the count borders on heavy and could be streamlined.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers the full lifecycle for the server's domain: discovery, querying, grounded answers, entity resolution, company profiles, fact-checking, prediction market analysis, memory, and monitoring. Minor gaps exist (no account management or direct data modification), but these are out of scope for a read-only data interface.

Resources