Skip to main content
Glama

e18e

by dev.e18e

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.

lookup-replacement

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.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
queryYesThe package name, replacement text, or topic to search for, e.g. `chalk`, `filter`, or `Array.prototype.map`.

Output Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
resultsYes

Schema Changelog

Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.

  1. Added

TDQS

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.

All e18e 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

B3/5.0
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.

Resources