A
licenseA
qualityB
maintenanceAn MCP server that exposes e18e module replacement data. It helps AI assistants suggest lighter, faster, or native alternatives to common JavaScript/Node.js packages.
Last updated
2
32
1
MIT
e18e
by dev.e18e
Server Details
The official e18e MCP server keeping your agent in check from installing bloated dependencies.
- Status
- Healthy
- Last Tested
- Transport
- Streamable HTTP
- URL
- Repository
- e18e/mcp
- GitHub Stars
- 0
Glama MCP Gateway
Connect through Glama MCP Gateway for full control over tool access and complete visibility into every call.
MCP client
Glama
MCP server
Full call logging
Every tool call is logged with complete inputs and outputs, so you can debug issues and audit what your agents are doing.
Tool access control
Enable or disable individual tools per connector, so you decide what your agents can and cannot do.
Managed credentials
Glama handles OAuth flows, token storage, and automatic rotation, so credentials never expire on your clients.
Usage analytics
See which tools your agents call, how often, and when, so you can understand usage patterns and catch anomalies.
100% free. Your data is private.
Tool Definition Quality
B3/5.0
Tool DescriptionsC
Average 2.8/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Server CoherenceA
Disambiguation4/5
Each tool has a distinct purpose: one checks source code for inefficient imports, one looks up replacements by various criteria, and one checks install command syntax for outdated packages. There is minor overlap between code-checker and npm-i-checker, but descriptions clarify the different contexts, so agents can generally distinguish them.
Naming Consistency3/5
All use snake_case, but the naming patterns are inconsistent: 'code-checker' and 'npm-i-checker' follow a noun-checker pattern, while 'lookup-replacement' uses a verb-noun pattern. 'npm-i-checker' is also somewhat cryptic, mixing package manager syntax. This lack of a uniform verb_noun convention makes the set less predictable.
Tool Count5/5
With 3 tools, the server is well-scoped for its purpose of checking code and packages for inefficient or outdated dependencies. Each tool addresses a distinct aspect of the workflow, and there are no redundant or missing tools that would make the count feel too thin or heavy.
Completeness4/5
The tool surface covers the main needs: checking source code, looking up replacements generally, and verifying install commands. A minor gap is the lack of a direct tool to check a package.json file or to analyze a whole project for inefficiencies, but the three tools together handle most common scenarios without significant dead ends.
Available Tools
3 toolscode-checkerCheck if the code contains some inefficient or outdated packages imported and suggests alternatives.CInspect
Check if the code contains some inefficient or outdated packages imported and suggests alternatives.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | The code to check. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| suggestions | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
C2.4/5.0
Behavior2/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description carries full burden for behavioral transparency. It only states the tool checks and suggests alternatives, but lacks details on whether it modifies code, the format of suggestions, or any side effects. This is insufficient for an agent to understand its behavior fully.
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 a single, concise sentence with no redundant information. However, it could be slightly more structured (e.g., listing actions) without losing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool has an output schema (though not provided in context), the description may not need to detail return values. However, it lacks clarity on what constitutes 'inefficient or outdated packages' and the nature of the suggestions. The description is adequate but minimal.
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% as the single parameter 'code' has a description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond what the schema provides, so baseline score of 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines2/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance is provided on when to use this tool versus its siblings. There is no mention of context, prerequisites, or when not to use it, leaving the agent to infer usage without clear direction.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
lookup-replacementCheck if a package has a more performant, maintained or efficient replacement by package name, replacement text, or topic. Returns a list of suggestions with descriptions and documentation links.CInspect
Check if a package has a more performant, maintained or efficient replacement by package name, replacement text, or topic. Returns a list of suggestions with descriptions and documentation links.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| query | Yes | The package name, replacement text, or topic to search for, e.g. `chalk`, `filter`, or `Array.prototype.map`. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
C2.9/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
Without annotations, the description bears full burden. It mentions returning a list of suggestions with descriptions and links, but lacks details on side effects, rate limits, or performance implications.
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 sentences that front-load key information. Some redundancy exists between the two sentences (both mention returning a list). Could be slightly tighter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness3/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple one-parameter tool with output schema, the description covers basic functionality and output. Lacks usage context or error conditions, which would be helpful for completeness.
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 a detailed description and examples. The tool description merely restates the parameter purpose without adding new semantic value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines3/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when seeking better package alternatives, but gives no explicit guidance on when not to use or how it compares to sibling tools 'code-checker' and 'npm-i-checker'.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
npm-i-checkerCheck for outdated or insecure npm packages in an install script like `npm i` or `pnpm add` or `yarn add` or `bun i`.BInspect
Check for outdated or insecure npm packages in an install script like npm i or pnpm add or yarn add or bun i.
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| command | Yes | The install command to check, e.g. `npm i express lodash` or `pnpm add express lodash` or `yarn add express lodash` or `bun i express lodash`. |
Output Schema
ParametersJSON Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| suggestions | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
B3.1/5.0
Behavior3/5
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description bears full burden. It states the tool checks for outdated or insecure packages, which implies a read-only analysis, but does not detail side effects, output format, or failure behavior.
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 a single sentence that conveys the purpose, though it repeats the parameter examples. It is concise but could be slightly tighter.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Completeness4/5
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
The tool has an output schema, so return values are covered. The description explains the purpose and usage adequately for a simple check tool, though it could mention what happens when packages are outdated.
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 the parameter description already includes examples. The tool description repeats these examples without adding new semantics, so it adds marginal value beyond the schema.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Purpose2/5
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Tautological: description restates name/title.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Usage Guidelines4/5
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description indicates when to use the tool (for install commands like npm i, pnpm add, etc.), but does not explicitly state when not to use it or mention alternative tools.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Claim this connector by publishing a /.well-known/glama.json file on your server's domain with the following structure:
{
"$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/connector.json",
"maintainers": [{ "email": "your-email@example.com" }]
}The email address must match the email associated with your Glama account. Once published, Glama will automatically detect and verify the file within a few minutes.
Control your server's listing on Glama, including description and metadata
Access analytics and receive server usage reports
Get monitoring and health status updates for your server
Feature your server to boost visibility and reach more users
For users:
Full audit trail – every tool call is logged with inputs and outputs for compliance and debugging
Granular tool control – enable or disable individual tools per connector to limit what your AI agents can do
Centralized credential management – store and rotate API keys and OAuth tokens in one place
Change alerts – get notified when a connector changes its schema, adds or removes tools, or updates tool definitions, so nothing breaks silently
For server owners:
Proven adoption – public usage metrics on your listing show real-world traction and build trust with prospective users
Tool-level analytics – see which tools are being used most, helping you prioritize development and documentation
Direct user feedback – users can report issues and suggest improvements through the listing, giving you a channel you would not have otherwise
The connector status is unhealthy when Glama is unable to successfully connect to the server. This can happen for several reasons:
The server is experiencing an outage
The URL of the server is wrong
Credentials required to access the server are missing or invalid
If you are the owner of this MCP connector and would like to make modifications to the listing, including providing test credentials for accessing the server, please contact support@glama.ai.
Discussions
No comments yet. Be the first to start the discussion!
Related MCP Servers
- Alicense-qualityBmaintenanceOfficial MCP Server for Buildkite.Last updated52MIT
- AlicenseAqualityDmaintenanceMCP server providing dependency and package management tools for AI agents. Analyze licenses, find outdated packages, visualize dependency trees, estimate bundle sizes, and audit security vulnerabilities.Last updated544MIT
- Flicense-qualityCmaintenanceThe public MCP server for togo — docs, the plugin marketplace, and plugin submission, for any agent.Last updated1