Skip to main content
Glama

Visa Requirements

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

A4.6/5.0
Behavior5/5

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

Annotations already indicate read-only, idempotent, non-destructive. Description adds critical behavioral details: partial failures from bundlephobia timeout, graceful degradation, and sources_failed field. 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?

Two well-structured sentences: first defines purpose and outputs, second covers usage and failure modes. Dense but efficient; minor room for tighter phrasing.

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, the description fully explains return structure (summary block, per-advisories, links, alternative versions), ecosystem limitation, and failure behavior. Comprehensive for agent decision-making.

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%, and description repeats that version defaults to latest and scoped packages are accepted—both already in schema. No additional semantic value beyond what schema provides.

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 defines the tool as a composite check for adding an npm package, listing specific checks (license, advisories, bundle size). It distinguishes from siblings by specifying NPM-only scope and naming alternative tools for other ecosystems.

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?

Provides explicit guidance: 'Use whenever an agent asks "is X safe / popular / small"' and notes that PyPI/Maven/Cargo/Go fall under deps.dev:version directly, clarifying when not to use this tool.

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

All Visa Requirements 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

A3.9/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several tools are near-duplicates: ask_pipeworx and ask_pipeworx_beta are explicitly described as identical, while ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, and validate_claim all route factual questions through overlapping retrieval pipelines. The visa tools are distinct, but the overall set has too many fuzzy boundaries for an agent to reliably pick the right one.

Naming Consistency4/5

Names are consistently lowercase snake_case with recognizable prefixes such as ask_pipeworx, polymarket_, visa_, and verb-first names like compare_entities, resolve_entity, and validate_claim. Minor deviations like bare verbs (forget) and noun-phrase names (entity_profile, pipeworx_feedback) keep it from a perfect score.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is already above the 25-tool heavy threshold, and for a server named 'Visa Requirements', only 3 tools are visa-related; the rest form an unrelated general data, research, prediction-market, and memory toolkit. This is an over-scoped and confusingly mixed-purpose collection.

Completeness3/5

The three visa tools cover passport-to-destination checks, all destinations for a passport, and multi-passport comparison, but there is no reverse destination-to-passport lookup or visa-policy/application detail. The unrelated tools do not fill those visa-domain gaps, so the surface feels incomplete for the stated visa purpose.

Resources