Skip to main content
Glama

e18e

by dev.e18e

Check for outdated or insecure npm packages in an install script like `npm i` or `pnpm add` or `yarn add` or `bun i`.

npm-i-checker

Check for outdated or insecure npm packages in an install script like npm i or pnpm add or yarn add or bun i.

Input Schema

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
commandYesThe 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

TableJSON Schema
NameRequiredDescriptionDefault
suggestionsYes

TDQS

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 It states the tool checks for outdated or insecure packages, which implies a read-only analysis, but does not detail side effects, output format, or failure behavior.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the purpose and usage adequately for a simple check tool, though it could mention what happens when packages are outdated.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.

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