Skip to main content
Glama

Wayback

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?

Beyond annotations (readOnly, idempotent, etc.), description details partial failures, bundlephobia latency (5-30s) on new versions, and the sources_failed field. 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?

Description is somewhat long but front-loaded with core purpose. Every sentence adds value, no redundancy. Could be slightly more concise but overall efficient.

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 enumerates return fields (summary block, advisories, links, alternative versions) and covers edge cases (partial failures, ecosystem limitation). Complete for a 2-param tool.

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 already describes both parameters (100% coverage). Description adds value by noting scoped packages are accepted and giving version example format. Baseline 3, plus extra contextual guidance.

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?

Description clearly states the tool performs a composite check for evaluating an npm package across deps.dev and bundlephobia, answering questions about safety, popularity, size. It distinguishes itself by being a one-call aggregation, and no sibling tool has overlapping purpose.

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 when agent asks about safety/popularity/size or cost of adding a package. NPM-only scope stated, with fallback instructions for other ecosystems via deps.dev:version directly. Provides clear context and exclusions.

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

All Wayback 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 clusters overlap heavily: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, and ask_pipeworx_grounded are near-identical in purpose, and the five polymarket_* tools all target prediction-market analysis. The presence of a broad Pipeworx data layer alongside Wayback-specific tools under one server name further blurs boundaries.

Naming Consistency3/5

Most tools use snake_case, but the pattern varies: many follow verb_noun (get_snapshot, list_snapshots, resolve_entity, validate_claim), while others are noun_noun (entity_profile, polymarket_edges, pipeworx_feedback, bet_research). Suffixes like _beta and _grounded are used inconsistently, and some names are long and descriptive while others are terse.

Tool Count2/5

34 tools is far more than what a Wayback Machine server should need, and most tools (Pipeworx data queries, prediction-market analysis, memory, subscriptions) have nothing to do with the Wayback Machine. The server's stated purpose appears narrow, but the tool set is bloated with unrelated functionality.

Completeness2/5

For the Wayback Machine domain, only three tools are relevant (get_capture_count, get_snapshot, list_snapshots), and obvious operations like saving/archiving a URL, comparing snapshots, or handling deleted captures are missing. The Pipeworx-related tools are broad but not clearly aligned with the Wayback theme, so the core purpose is under-served.

Resources