Skip to main content
Glama

Unicef

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

A4.8/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Adds context beyond annotations: fans out to two services, returns a structured summary, handles partial failures, notes 5-30s delay on bundlephobia first measurement. No contradictions.

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?

Well-structured and front-loaded, but slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value; still clear and readable.

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?

Thorough for a complex tool: describes return fields, addresses edge cases (scoped packages, partial failures, timing), and no output schema is compensated by description of output structure.

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% with descriptions. The description adds context about default behavior (version defaults to latest) and scoped packages, but schema already covers parameter meaning.

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 states it's a composite check for 'should I add this npm package', covering license, advisories, version history, and bundle size. It distinguishes itself from direct deps.dev calls by being a one-call fan-out.

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 clarifies scope (NPM only in v1) and handles partial failures gracefully.

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

All Unicef 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

Several tool families heavily overlap: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, discover_tools, and suggest_questions all serve 'find/query Pipeworx data' with blurry boundaries, and the six Polymarket tools (bet_research, polymarket_edges, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_fill_risk, polymarket_kalshi_spread) have overlapping purposes. An agent could easily pick the wrong one without reading every description.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools follow snake_case verb_noun patterns (list_dataflows, get_data, compare_entities, resolve_entity), and families share prefixes (pipeworx_*, polymarket_*, ask_pipeworx_*). However, the server is named 'Unicef' while almost all tool names reference Pipeworx/Polymarket, and verb choices vary widely, so the overall set lacks a unified naming story.

Tool Count1/5

34 tools is already on the high side, but the real problem is scope: only 3 tools (list_dataflows, dataflow_structure, get_data) relate to the server's stated UNICEF purpose, while the other 31 are an unrelated grab bag of Pipeworx research, prediction-market betting, memory utilities, npm scanning, and llms.txt generation. This is a severe mismatch between count and purpose.

Completeness2/5

For the UNICEF domain implied by the server name, the surface is minimal: browse, structure, and fetch data cover read-only access but nothing else, and the overwhelming majority of tools are off-domain. If the inferred domain is instead 'Pipeworx + prediction markets', coverage is broad, but then the server name is fundamentally misleading and the UNICEF subset is an incomplete afterthought.

Resources