Skip to main content
Glama

Tvmaze

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 declare idempotent, read-only, non-destructive behavior. The description adds valuable context: composite call, partial failure handling (bundlephobia timeout of 5-30s, sources_failed listed), graceful degradation, and return structure.

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 somewhat lengthy but well-structured, front-loading the core purpose. Every sentence adds value, covering usage, return, and edge cases. Minor conciseness improvements could be made.

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?

Given no output schema, the description thoroughly covers return fields, error handling, timeout behavior, and ecosystem limitations. It is complete for a complex composite tool.

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% with clear descriptions. The description adds ecosystem scope ('NPM only in v1') and clarifies default behavior for version, but does not significantly enhance parameter semantics 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 clearly identifies the tool as a composite check for npm packages, combining deps.dev and bundlephobia. It uses specific verbs ('scan', 'check') and distinguishes from sibling tools by its unique scope.

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?

The description explicitly states when to use (agent asks about safety, popularity, size) and when not to (other ecosystems, directing to deps.dev:version directly). This provides clear decision support.

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

All Tvmaze 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

Tools cover a wide range of domains (TV, finance, betting, memory, etc.), each with detailed descriptions that help distinguish their purposes. However, some overlap exists between related tools like bet_research, polymarket_arbitrage, and polymarket_edges, though the descriptions clarify their distinct uses.

Naming Consistency4/5

Most tool names follow a consistent verb_noun pattern with underscores (e.g., get_show, list_episodes, resolve_entity). A few tools use single imperative verbs (remember, recall, forget), which is a minor deviation but still clear.

Tool Count3/5

The server has 31 tools, which is on the higher side. While each tool has a defined purpose, the scope seems too broad for a server named 'Tvmaze', as many tools are unrelated to TV (e.g., company analysis, betting, memory). A more focused set would improve coherence.

Completeness4/5

For a general-purpose data server, the tool set covers a wide range of tasks: TV show lookups, company research, betting analysis, memory management, and more. The inclusion of ask_pipeworx as a fallback for many queries compensates for missing specific tools. However, the TV-specific functionality is limited to search and schedule, missing details like cast or crew.

Resources