Skip to main content
Glama

Adsb

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

A4.7/5.0
Behavior5/5

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Adds significant behavioral context beyond annotations: describes partial failure degradation, timing caveat for bundlephobia (5-30s), and lists returned fields (summary, advisories, links, versions). Annotations already indicate safe, read-only, idempotent behavior.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Conciseness5/5

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is detailed yet concise, front-loading the key purpose and use case. Every sentence adds value, covering composite nature, alternatives, timing, and return structure without unnecessary fluff.

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?

Given the tool has no output schema, the description fully covers return values (summary fields, advisory detail, links, alternative versions) and addresses edge cases (partial failures, timing). The level of detail is complete for an agent to select and invoke correctly.

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 clear descriptions for both parameters. The description repeats schema info but adds no new meaning beyond what the schema already provides. Baseline 3 is appropriate as the schema already does the heavy lifting.

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?

The description clearly states it's a composite check for npm packages combining deps.dev and bundlephobia data. It uses a specific verb-resource pair ('scan dependency') and distinguishes from sibling tools by specifying the ecosystem (npm only) and mentioning alternative tools for other ecosystems.

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 states when to use: 'Use whenever an agent asks is X safe / popular / small' and provides exclusion criteria: 'NPM ecosystem only in v1; PyPI / Maven / Cargo / Go fall under deps.dev:version directly.'

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

All Adsb 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

A3.6/5.0
Disambiguation2/5

Several clusters of tools have unclear boundaries: ask_pipeworx, ask_pipeworx_beta, ask_pipeworx_grounded, deep_research, validate_claim, and bet_research all overlap as query/research entry points, and ai_visibility_check vs. scan_competitor_ai_presence plus the six polymarket_* tools create further confusion. An agent would often need deep description reading to pick the right tool.

Naming Consistency2/5

Naming mixes consistent verb_noun forms (get_aircraft, resolve_entity, validate_claim) with noun phrases (aircraft_near, military_aircraft, recent_alerts), adjective-led names (polymarket_arbitrage), and conversational names (ask_pipeworx, suggest_questions). Subgroups like polymarket_* are internally consistent, but overall there is no unified pattern.

Tool Count2/5

35 tools is high for any cohesive server, especially one named 'Adsb' where only 4 tools relate to aircraft tracking. The count is inflated by many overlapping meta-research, prediction-market, memory, and subscription tools, making it feel like several servers were merged into one.

Completeness2/5

For the implied 'Adsb' domain, only live ADSB positioning is covered; airport info, flight schedules, route search, and aviation weather are missing. Even as a general data/betting server, there are gaps like a direct stock-quote tool and unclear lifecycle coverage across the mixed feature set, so agents will likely hit dead ends.

Resources