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.
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.
Tool Definition Quality
Average 2.6/5 across 3 of 3 tools scored.
Each tool targets a distinct aspect: code analysis for outdated imports, lookup of package replacements, and checking npm install scripts. No overlap in functionality.
All tool names follow a consistent lowercase hyphenated pattern combining a target and action (e.g., code-checker, lookup-replacement, npm-i-checker).
With 3 tools, the set is tightly scoped to the domain of package optimization and covers key user actions without being too sparse or excessive.
The core functionality is covered, but missing tools for automatically applying replacements or analyzing package.json files leave some workflows incomplete.
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3 toolscode-checkerCheck if the code contains some inefficient or outdated packages imported and suggests alternatives.CInspect
Check if the code contains some inefficient or outdated packages imported and suggests alternatives.
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
| code | Yes | The code to check. |
Output Schema
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| suggestions | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations provided. The description does not disclose behavioral traits such as whether the tool requires network access, performs destructive actions, or what happens with the code input. It merely states the function without depth.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is essentially a tautology of the title. It is under-specified rather than concise, lacking important details that could be conveyed in minimal space.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Despite low complexity (1 parameter) and an output schema being present, the description does not explain what the return value contains (e.g., list of suggestions). It fails to provide complete context for the agent to understand the full behavior.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has 100% coverage for the single parameter 'code' with a basic description. The tool description adds no additional meaning beyond the schema, so the baseline score of 3 applies.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
No guidance on when to use this tool over 'npm-i-checker' or other alternatives. The description lacks any context about prerequisites, typical use cases, or when to avoid using it.
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.BInspect
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.
| 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
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| results | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
With no annotations, the description carries full burden but only states it returns suggestions with descriptions and links. It does not disclose whether the operation is read-only, any side effects, authentication needs, or behavior when no matches are found.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is two sentences, front-loaded with purpose in the first sentence and output format in the second. No redundant or extraneous content.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
For a simple lookup tool with one parameter and an output schema, the description sufficiently covers what the tool does and what it returns. No gaps are apparent.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3. The tool description reiterates parameter usage ('by package name, replacement text, or topic') but adds no new meaning beyond the schema's parameter description.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies usage when seeking a replacement for a package, topic, or code pattern, but does not explicitly compare to alternatives or provide when-not-to-use scenarios. No exclusions or conditions are given.
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`.CInspect
Check for outdated or insecure npm packages in an install script like npm i or pnpm add or yarn add or bun i.
| 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
| Name | Required | Description |
|---|---|---|
| suggestions | Yes |
Tool Definition Quality
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full responsibility for behavioral disclosure. It does not explain how the check is performed (e.g., network request, local registry), whether there are side effects, permissions required, or rate limits. The description only states the outcome ('check for outdated or insecure') without mechanism.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single sentence that is clear and without redundancy. It is front-loaded with the core purpose. However, it could be slightly expanded to include behavioral details without sacrificing conciseness.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given the tool's simplicity (one parameter, output schema exists), the description is minimally adequate. It states what the tool does but does not explain the output format, error conditions, or interpret results. The existence of an output schema may fill some gaps, but the description itself is incomplete.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
Schema coverage is 100% with one parameter. The description does not add significant meaning beyond the schema's parameter description, which already includes examples. The tool description repeats these examples, so the added value is minimal. Baseline 3 is appropriate.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
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.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
There is no guidance on when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'code-checker'. The description implies usage during package installation but does not specify prerequisites, limitations, or when not to use it. No exclusions or alternatives are mentioned.
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!