Skip to main content
Glama

Uuid

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?

Descriptiom adds critical behavioral context beyond annotations: partial failures degrade gracefully, bundlephobia's first measurement can take 5-30s, and sources_failed will list timeouts. Annotations already declare readOnlyHint, idempotentHint, and destructiveHint, but the description explains failure modes and timing.

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 well-structured with front-loaded purpose, but is slightly verbose. Every sentence adds value (e.g., ecosystem limitation, failure details), though some could be tightened. Still above average for conciseness.

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 the tool's complexity (composite check with multiple external sources), the description is highly complete. It covers return summary fields, failure behavior, timing, and ecosystem scope. Annotations already provide safety and idempotency context. No output schema exists, but the description lists all returned fields comprehensively.

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 covers both parameters with descriptions (100% coverage). The description adds extra value: scoped packages are accepted, and version defaults to latest. This is a minor addition over the schema, justifying a score of 4.

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 it's a composite check for npm packages covering license, advisories, version history, and bundle size. It uses specific verbs like 'scan', 'fans out' and distinguishes itself from sibling tools by being a single-call composite for npm dependency evaluation.

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 when to use: when agent asks about package safety, popularity, size, or cost. Also clarifies ecosystem scope (NPM only in v1) and directs other ecosystems to deps.dev:version directly. This provides clear when-not-to-use guidance.

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

All Uuid 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
Disambiguation3/5

Most tools have distinct purposes, but several overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx_beta explicitly matches ask_pipeworx exactly, ai_visibility_check is a single-entity version of scan_competitor_ai_presence, and multiple Polymarket tools (polymarket_edges, polymarket_arbitrage, polymarket_edge_tracker, polymarket_fill_risk) share fuzzy boundaries. The lengthy descriptions help, but an agent could easily select the wrong tool.

Naming Consistency4/5

The overwhelming majority follow a clear verb_noun or noun_phrase pattern (ask_pipeworx, resolve_entity, validate_claim, generate_uuid, discover_tools). The ask_pipeworx_beta/ask_pipeworx_grounded variants and brand-name tools like pipeworx_trending are minor deviations, but the overall convention is remarkably consistent across 33 tools.

Tool Count2/5

33 tools is heavy for a single MCP server, especially one named 'Uuid' where only 2 tools (generate_uuid, validate_uuid) relate to the apparent name. The remaining 31 tools constitute a sprawling data-research platform that would normally be its own server. The count stretches beyond what is typically coherent.

Completeness3/5

As a data-research platform, the surface is quite complete: lookup, grounded answers, deep research, entity resolution, comparisons, claim validation, subscriptions, memory, and feedback are all covered. However, for the nominal 'Uuid' domain, only generation and validation exist — missing anything like UUID namespace generation, timestamp extraction from v1/v7, or bulk operations — creating a glaring mismatch between server name and actual tool scope.

Resources