Skip to main content
Glama

Tech Feeds

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

A4.5/5.0
Behavior4/5

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

Beyond annotations (readOnly, openWorld, idempotent), the description reveals graceful partial failures, timing concerns (bundlephobia first measurement takes 5-30s), and the sources_failed indicator. This adds valuable behavioral context not present in annotations. However, no mention of rate limits or authentication, which would earn a 5.

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?

The description is well-structured: starts with a bold summary, then usage guidance, return structure, ecosystem note, and error handling. Every sentence adds value, and the information is densely packed without being verbose. It front-loads key information effectively.

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 format: summary block fields, per-advisory detail, links, and alternatives. It also covers partial failure behavior and ecosystem scope, leaving no significant gaps for an agent to interpret the tool's behavior.

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 description coverage is 100%, so baseline is 3. The description adds minor context (scoped packages accepted, version defaults to latest) but does not significantly enhance parameter understanding beyond the schema. It confirms the parameters' roles but doesn't add new semantics.

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's purpose: a composite check for evaluating npm packages. It specifies the verb 'scan' and the resource 'dependency', and differentiates from siblings by being a one-call composite that fans out across deps.dev and bundlephobia. This is specific and distinguishes from other tools in the sibling list.

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?

Explicit guidance on when to use: whenever agent asks about safety, popularity, size, or cost of adding an npm package. Also explicitly states what NOT to use it for: non-NPM ecosystems (PyPI, Maven, etc.) and directs to deps.dev:version directly. This provides clear context and alternatives.

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

All Tech Feeds 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

A3.8/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, e.g., multiple ask_pipeworx variants, bet_research vs. polymarket_edges, and several entity/profile tools. An agent could easily misselect between similar tools despite detailed descriptions.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names are inconsistent: some use snake_case (ask_pipeworx), some camelCase (ai_visibility_check), and verbs vary (ask, bet, compare, scan, validate). No clear naming convention is followed across the set.

Tool Count3/5

With 34 tools, the server covers a broad range of functionalities for a platform like Pipeworx. While each tool seems justified, the count is on the higher end, potentially overwhelming for simpler use cases.

Completeness4/5

The tool set covers data retrieval, memory, subscriptions, Polymarket analysis, and utility functions comprehensively. Minor gaps exist (e.g., no direct user management) but core workflows are well-supported.

Resources