Skip to main content
Glama

timezone

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only/idempotent, and the description adds rich behavioral context: composite fan-out, partial failure degradation, potential 5-30s delay on first bundlephobia measurement, sources_failed listing, and that the rest of the data still returns. No contradiction 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 information-dense but front-loaded with the core purpose. Each sentence adds value (usage, return contents, limitations, failure behavior). Slightly verbose but appropriate for the composite nature; not wastefully long.

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?

No output schema exists, so the description must explain return values—it enumerates the summary fields and mentions per-advisory detail, links, and alternative versions. It also covers ecosystem limitations, latency, and partial failures, making the tool's behavior well understood for an agent.

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%, so baseline 3 applies. The description does not add new parameter semantics beyond what the schema already states; it mentions version defaults and scoped packages implicitly, but those are already in the schema. No extra value.

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 opens with a specific verb+resource: 'Composite "should I add this npm package to my project" check in ONE call'. It clearly distinguishes from sibling tools by naming the exact data sources (deps.dev, bundlephobia) and the scope (npm packages), which no sibling covers.

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 triggers are given: 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small" or "what does adding lodash cost me"'. It also provides an exclusion/alternative: 'NPM ecosystem only in v1; PyPI / Maven / Cargo / Go fall under deps.dev:version directly'.

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

All timezone 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, especially the multiple 'ask_pipeworx' variants and several Polymarket utilities. The server mixes a few timezone tools with a large collection of unrelated data lookup and analysis tools, making it hard for an agent to distinguish which tool to use for a given task.

Naming Consistency2/5

While all tool names use snake_case, the verbs are highly inconsistent (e.g., 'ask_pipeworx', 'convert_time', 'discover_tools', 'validate_claim'). There is no clear pattern or predictable naming convention across the set.

Tool Count2/5

The server name 'timezone' suggests a narrow domain, but it contains 35 tools, the vast majority of which are unrelated to timezones. This is far too many for the implied scope, and the server seems to be a dumping ground for various services.

Completeness1/5

For a timezone server, only 4 tools (convert_time, get_time_by_ip, get_time_by_timezone, list_timezones) are relevant. Critical timezone functionality like time zone conversions with arbitrary offsets, DST handling, or time zone by coordinates is missing. The remaining tools are completely unrelated to the server's stated purpose.

Resources