Skip to main content
Glama

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, open-world, idempotent, and non-destructive. Description adds crucial details about partial failures degrading gracefully, bundlephobia latency (5-30s), and the 'sources_failed' field.

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?

Description is dense but well-structured, front-loading the core value proposition and then detailing behavioral nuances. Every sentence adds value without redundancy.

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 lacking an output schema, the description comprehensively details the return structure (summary block, per-advisory detail, links, alternative versions) and handles edge cases like partial failures, making the tool's behavior fully predictable.

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?

Input schema has 100% coverage for both parameters. Description adds that 'version' defaults to latest published when omitted and that scoped packages are accepted, providing useful 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?

Description clearly states it's a composite check for deciding whether to add an npm package, covering license, advisories, version history, bundle size, etc. It distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a single call that fans out across multiple sources.

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 'is X safe / popular / small' or 'what does adding lodash cost me''. Also specifies NPM ecosystem only in v1 and directs to deps.dev:version for other ecosystems.

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

Try in Browser

Glama MCP Gateway

Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.

TDQS

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

ask_pipeworx_beta is explicitly identical to ask_pipeworx today, and ask_pipeworx_grounded is another variant of the same router, so an agent can easily misselect. Additionally, bet_research, polymarket_edges, and polymarket_arbitrage all present as prediction-market opportunity finders with overlapping responsibilities.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow snake_case verb_noun (ask_pipeworx, list_subscriptions, resolve_entity, unsubscribe, validate_claim), but several break the pattern with noun phrases like polymarket_edges and pipeworx_trending, plus oddities like startup_oracle_evaluate. The mix is readable but not predictable.

Tool Count2/5

32 tools is well over the 25 threshold and the set is not tightly scoped: prediction markets alone account for six overlapping tools, and the server also bundles memory, subscriptions, npm dependency scanning, llms.txt generation, and AI visibility checks. ask_pipeworx_beta adds a duplicate that does not earn its slot.

Completeness3/5

As a read-heavy research gateway, the surface is broad: lookups, profiles, comparisons, verification, deep research, discovery, and citation handling are covered, and the subscription/memory helpers have their own lifecycle operations. But the 'Startup Oracle' mission is thin — startup-specific evaluation is a single joke tool, and there is no way to update subscriptions or act on research findings beyond saving memory.