Skip to main content
Glama

Threatfox

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

A4.9/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Disclosed partial failure and latency: 'bundlephobia's first measurement on a new version can take 5-30s; sources_failed will list it if it times out'. Annotations already show readOnly, openWorld, idempotent hints, no contradiction.

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?

Single dense paragraph that front-loads purpose and includes all necessary details without redundancy. Every sentence is informative.

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 structure (summary block, per-advisory detail, links, alternatives) and error handling. Complete for a composite tool with two external APIs.

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%. Description adds that scoped packages are accepted for 'package' and defaults to latest version for 'version'. Adds value beyond schema descriptions.

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 npm packages, fans out across deps.dev and bundlephobia, and answers questions about safety, popularity, and size. Distinguishes from sibling tools like search_hash, search_malware, etc.

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 usage instruction: 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me"'. Also notes ecosystem limitation to npm in v1 and directs to deps.dev for other ecosystems.

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

All Threatfox 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

A3.5/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Many tools have overlapping purposes, such as multiple 'ask_pipeworx' variants, 'deep_research', and various search tools (search_hash, search_ioc, search_malware, search_within). The similarities in descriptions confuse an agent's ability to select the correct tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Tool names mix conventions: some use underscores (ask_pipeworx, deep_research), some use hyphenated or compound names (generate_llms_txt, pipeworx_feedback), and verbs are inconsistent (search vs. ask vs. validate). No clear pattern.

Tool Count2/5

With 35 tools, the server feels over-scoped, integrating many domains (financials, drugs, prediction markets, threat intel) into a single surface. This leads to redundancy and makes it hard for agents to navigate.

Completeness3/5

The tool set covers a wide range of data lookups and threat intel operations, but there are noticeable gaps: few update/delete/management tools (only subscribe/unsubscribe/forget) and no clear lifecycle for many resource types. Some domains appear incomplete.

Resources